Women are unhappy because childless. Women who have family whether they remain married or not have purpose in life. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking the evolved instincts for women to have children are among the greatest evolved instincts in nature, even greater at times than the instinct to live.
"In many respects, our society embarked on the feminist project for the best of reasons, but the result is increasingly divisive, unjust, and frequently inhumane."
Well yeah. That's what happens when women decide they want to be more like men. And that was true of the feminist movement *from the very start*.
I don't know at what point women decided they wanted to "have it all," but I got news for the fence-sitting gals that might be reading this: men can't have it all, either. That's why men and women need each other. And there ought to be nothing scandalous or controversial about pointing out that fact -- men and women need each other. As soon as "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" became the feminist slogan, women inevitably set themselves up for disappointment. Whether or not you believe in God, biology itself will not be mocked.
Feminism and the women's rights movement are related but not the same.
According to Bell Hooks, Feminism is “A movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.”
This definition, offered in her book Feminism Is for Everybody (2000), is intentionally broad and inclusive. She emphasizes that feminism is not about being anti-male, but rather about dismantling systems of domination—patriarchy, white supremacy, capitalism—that harm all people, including men.
Key elements of bell hooks’ conception of feminism include:
- Ending systemic injustice: She views sexism as one of many interconnected forms of oppression.
- Intersectionality: Long before the term became mainstream, hooks emphasized the importance of race, class, and gender as overlapping systems of power.
- Inclusivity and transformation: Her feminism calls for a rethinking of social norms, institutions, and personal relationships to build a just and loving society.
- Accessibility: She believed feminism should be understandable and relevant to everyone, not just academics or elites.
Tony CF suggested that with "goodwill and courage, we can do better than this". This implies that there is not good will involved in feminist movement or courage. I'm curious to know if this article was just posted to maintain the status quo? Suggestions about next steps, Tony CF (AI)?
You think that her definition is broad? In one course on feminist theology, my prof (by chance, a man) defined feminism as "a movement that strives to bring about a better world." That was a proclamation, however, not a definition, because it could have applied to any movement and therefore had no defining feature at all. Even the Nazis, for example, believed that their movement would make a better world--albeit only for themselves.
In this passage, at any rate, Hooks (or "hooks" as she spelled her name in deference to her rejection of hierarchy) fails also to define "sexism," "exploitation" and "oppression," all three of which are tendentious because of their implicit meanings--as if hatred were impossible among women, as if the state were unwilling or unable to use men as natural resources, as if men could never be the victims of cruelty or injustice).
At the heart of feminism (and all political ideologies on both the Left and the Right) is a utopian mentality. In one way, an ideological utopia is the secular equivalent of a religious paradise. Both are ideals and therefore far from current reality. But religious ones cannot be realized within history at all (even though many religious communities try to approximate eternal and cosmic patterns to remind themselves of the remote past and/or the remote future, of what once was and/or what could be once again given ultimate liberation from the finitude of everyday life). Secular ideologies make no such metaphysical distinctions and must therefore be realized "by any means necessary" in the present or foreseeable future. Those who passively refuse to cooperate in this titanic historical struggle or even actively stand in the way of the utopian society are not merely foolish or blind, therefore, but also evil.
Most woman that dissatisfied with todays are likely because unreasonable payments, works, and social life, like low bare minimum wage and sexually abuse that spread in many space actively especially in public area.
Feminism is focused on individualistic rights not as a group, they make a group just for their voices got listen, just like an activist who had statements to say for their own good. a group that doesnt have soul but they're being indicates to their own believe that makes the own group had delightful for everyone
The big problem is that the feminists are for feminist rights, but they got clever in the late 1960s and started calling themselves the "women's" movement. You can tell that they're not for women because they will viciously attack any woman who doesn't agree with them. They also don't support a lot of things that women do want. I think one of their biggest secrets is that there are a lot of men involved. For example, women in 1920 didn't give themselves the vote - men did that. Most women at the time actually opposed it (and for very interesting grounds).
There are men behind the feminist movement, and men's support, especially financial support from husbands and fathers, made famous feminist women able to access audiences. But considering how unpopular women's suffrage was among women of the late 19th and early 20th century, and that women did organize to try to oppose it, we have an example of how inadequate women actually are at political organizing in our own interests.
Women, even smart women, don't do the kinds of strategic thinking men do. Among chess grandmasters, only 5% are women. Among the top 500 e-sports players, zero are women, year after year. Neither chess nor e-sports require physical strength. Around 2010, feminist critics of supposed sexism in gaming were making a lot of noise. This is weird because there was an easy workaround - women could play online via male avatars, and nobody would know that player even was a woman. The reality was that women weren't much interested in video games, which rubbed feminists the wrong way.
The fact that so many women are openly expressing unhappiness, especially in matters of love and family, is a giant clue that feminism doesn't promote things women need and want - it promotes what feminists need and want.
"You can tell that they're not for women because they will viciously attack any woman who doesn't agree with them." Yes, Trish, and the most obvious examples are those women who "privilege" trans-women (that is, men who claim to be women), even at the cost of safety, over real women. That's the "logic" of intersectionalism.
It's true that feminism has not produced an ideological utopia for women (let alone an egalitarian one for women and men). Even so, I give feminists credit for their strategic cleverness and political sophistication. Never mind that their utopia is rapidly becoming a dystopia, partly due to the sudden and spectacular rise of closely allied ideologies under the umbrella of wokism or identity politics. All of these ideologies, following the paradigm established by feminism, have by now achieved more in Western countries (for good or ill), and done so more quickly, than any cultural revolution in history (including those of Mao, Lenin and Hitler). Not a single institution--the family, the law, the press, the church, the university, even the kindergarten--has been left standing as it was only half a century ago (within living memory). Thanks to these ideologies, we can no longer take for granted even the most universal and fundamental moral intuitions such as the difference between justice and revenge or the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would ..." or "Do not do unto others as you would not ...."); instead, we must defend them all over again as if we were re-inventing the wheel. At stake is no longer this or that group but Western civilization itself.
Looking at the strategic actions of feminists, especially since the 1960s, I strongly suspect that men with political aims of their own, have been directing the movement from behind the scenes.
Anything is possible, but you need some evidence for this conspiracy theory. What would men have to gain by orchestrating a movement that defines men as evil?
One more thought. Women did not vote themselves suffrage - that was men voting. At the time, up to 90% of American women opposed women voting. Even creating and operating their own anti-women’s vote organizations didn’t succeed.
Women, even highly intelligent women, are not good at strategic thinking. Of the top chess grandmasters, only 5% are women. In e-sports, year after year, the top 500 players includes no women. In history, the number of women who were effective political leaders is vanishingly small, and I can’t think of the name of a successful single female general.
Feminism is a divisive identity-driven movement. As we have seen recently, divisive identity-based politics are used by people who look like the supposed evil ones. Gavin Newsom is a white straight man, yet he goes along with a lot of identity politics.
Hugh Hefner, who was decried by feminists for publishing a magazine they identified as sexist, funded feminist causes such as free daycare.
Yes, Trish, but you haven’t answered my question. I still don’t see your point. You write that men “have been directing the movement from behind the scenes.” That would amount to conspiracy, after all, not merely opportunism. But a conspiracy to what end? To gain power for themselves as individuals at the expense of all other men? That could be true of Newsom and others of his kind, those who manage to combine personal ambition and vanity with stupidity, but you’d need some hard evidence nonetheless in order to demonstrate the more general claim that female feminists are nothing more than the dupes of male feminists.
Just because their movement is named for women doesn’t mean women run it or benefit from it. Women in the early 20th century overwhelmingly opposed women getting the vote. Women’s suffrage wasn’t an accomplishment of women, as it is portrayed today - it was enacted by men. Yet, today, it is held up as one of feminism or women’s great accomplishments, so much so that I only found out in the past year that 90% of US women opposed it.
Women of the post WWII era didn’t try to keep their factory jobs, they went to the suburbs to create the baby boom. Betty Friedan’s portrayal of those women as depressed and unhappy was not only unsupported by evidence, but motivated by her longstanding communist ideology. Gloria Steinem’s work and MS Magazine were financially supported by the men of the CIA. Remember that the communist revolution in Russia claimed to be a workers’ revolution, but the regime was not engineered or enacted by Russian workers, and workers under the Soviet Union suffered and died in massive numbers.
Just because the feminist movement in its current form demonizes men, doesn’t mean that this is the goal of all the men who participated in or assisted feminism in earlier eras. Even today, there are plenty of men who think that being a feminist an supporting feminism makes them one of the “good” ones.
No, that’s one groups rights vs the others. Tbh, if you boil down all the fabricated mythology (Zionism vs “colonial theory”), you get a typical, uninteresting story of one ethnic group invading another’s land and conquering them or kicking them out. Just another chapter in the long history of human violence.
I disagree, Chuck. Your point of view is reductive. There's nothing "typical" about the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.
Jews did not "invade" Palestine (which didn't exist, because it was ruled at first by the Ottoman Turks and then by the British). Some Jews had been living there for centuries. Others arrived from Europe and bought land--not from local Arab farmers, unfortunately, but from absentee landlords in Constantinople. Later on, the British (with the United Nations) partitioned the mandate territory into two states, one for the Jews and one (bigger and more fertile) for the Arabs. The surrounding Arab states objected. Wanting all of the land, not part of it, they invaded Israel with conquest in mind. During the conflict, some local Arabs were indeed forced by Israelis to leave. Others chose to leave, however, because their leaders promised them a quick victory, a return to their land and expulsion of all Jews. (At the same time, many of those countries expelled their own Jews, who fled to Israel as refugees--but were rapidly integrated, not segregated in refugee camps.) But many Arabs stayed where they were and became Israeli citizens with several of their own political parties in the Israeli parliament.
It all "boils down" to violence from the perspective of Hamas, sure, and even from that of many Gazans to this day (although they have begun to rebel against Hamas). But that's because the Palestinians have so far chosen an ideology that relies on violence rather than cooperation. Had they accepted partition on several occasions, both nations would now be living in peace with each other.
I guess it all depends on how you define feminism. My understanding is that feminism is about equal rights and the freedom to make your own choices. The fact that it is necessary to talk about female rights is because for a very long time in history, females weren’t given equal rights or were as protected from violence as men. And even though you might think that this problem is now solved, this is hardly the case in many countries (in Afghanistan for example, girls are not allowed to go to school). In fact, femicide, sexual assault and violence are still very real problems today for women. The reason why many females are not satisfied today is because advocating for equal rights in the past decades has not culminated in equal rights across the world.
Feminists/women want more rights or privileges for some perceived disadvantage to men. It's like they should be completely independent of men with no acknowledgement of men. In the end they always need someone to take out the garbage.
"It's like they should be completely independent of men with no acknowledgement of men." Yes, Peter1, that's precisely what many feminists have always wanted: total independence from men. That includes not only financial independence but also emotional, spiritual, artistic and every other kind of independence. Of particular importance, though, is reproductive independence. Feminists want fathers to have no say at all in the fate of their unborn children. They argue that abortion should be strictly "between a woman and her doctor." Moreover, they believe that fathers are nothing more than assistant mothers (at best) and therefore have no inherent function within family life at all (except for their paychecks). Many feminists claim that men, per se, should have no say in anything at all to do with reproduction. This leaves men with no investment in family life and no reason to stick around their wives and children. Worse, it leaves men with no investment in the future of society itself and no reason to support any community. This is a recipe for societal collapse. And yet, people still wonder why men hesitate longer than ever, at least within living memory, before marrying women or even establishing enduring "relationships" with women.
The fact is that "independence" (or "autonomy") is a relative term in any study of human psychology. We need enough to function as individuals, sure, but not so much that we can't function with members of families, friends, colleagues or communities. Complete independence is both impossible and undesirable in any sexually dimorphic species. The whole point of culture in our species, after all, is to bring men and women (or other groups) together for the common good. This means inter-dependence, not independence.
Just imagine if a group of men split off from society(if our laws permitted that) and started their own city. They instituted laws to keep law and order and everyone worked. Soon the city becomes very successful even more than the old one. Even before that there are women who want into this new society. You know the old saying, where the boys go the girls will follow. There is one caveat to join this society: we must live within the confines of our biological dictates and enforce the laws. How many will join the new society? Eventually the old society would wither and disappear.
Covid was an excellent example of the power of group rights. Those who chose to be injected were told they would be given all their rights to participate in society while those who refused were banished from social life, family life, work, travel etc. Fear was a powerful tool in coercing the population into compliance, not only to conform but to persecute those who wouldn't.
Time has proven that the government lied about the risks to people's safety and where the danger lay for some segments of the population. Sadly, there is still a mass psychosis within society that the unvaccinated are still a threat to their health. There are so many similarities to feminism as you have described in this essay.
The Human Rights commissioner was silent and the Worker's Unions locked their doors. Doctors were threatened with deregistration if they didn't vaccinate. It was a mass violation of human rights and the majority of society have no idea what took place. We all need to wake up to the erosion of our human rights even though in NSW we don't even have any. https://humanrightsfornsw.org/
Women are unhappy because childless. Women who have family whether they remain married or not have purpose in life. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking the evolved instincts for women to have children are among the greatest evolved instincts in nature, even greater at times than the instinct to live.
Just cut to the chase.
Give feminists side arms and licences to kill, not just inconvenient offspring, but anyone who gets in their way.
And have them hand out white flowers to shame any men who are not net lifetime tax payers.
Yes
"In many respects, our society embarked on the feminist project for the best of reasons, but the result is increasingly divisive, unjust, and frequently inhumane."
Well yeah. That's what happens when women decide they want to be more like men. And that was true of the feminist movement *from the very start*.
I don't know at what point women decided they wanted to "have it all," but I got news for the fence-sitting gals that might be reading this: men can't have it all, either. That's why men and women need each other. And there ought to be nothing scandalous or controversial about pointing out that fact -- men and women need each other. As soon as "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" became the feminist slogan, women inevitably set themselves up for disappointment. Whether or not you believe in God, biology itself will not be mocked.
Feminism and the women's rights movement are related but not the same.
According to Bell Hooks, Feminism is “A movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.”
This definition, offered in her book Feminism Is for Everybody (2000), is intentionally broad and inclusive. She emphasizes that feminism is not about being anti-male, but rather about dismantling systems of domination—patriarchy, white supremacy, capitalism—that harm all people, including men.
Key elements of bell hooks’ conception of feminism include:
- Ending systemic injustice: She views sexism as one of many interconnected forms of oppression.
- Intersectionality: Long before the term became mainstream, hooks emphasized the importance of race, class, and gender as overlapping systems of power.
- Inclusivity and transformation: Her feminism calls for a rethinking of social norms, institutions, and personal relationships to build a just and loving society.
- Accessibility: She believed feminism should be understandable and relevant to everyone, not just academics or elites.
Tony CF suggested that with "goodwill and courage, we can do better than this". This implies that there is not good will involved in feminist movement or courage. I'm curious to know if this article was just posted to maintain the status quo? Suggestions about next steps, Tony CF (AI)?
You think that her definition is broad? In one course on feminist theology, my prof (by chance, a man) defined feminism as "a movement that strives to bring about a better world." That was a proclamation, however, not a definition, because it could have applied to any movement and therefore had no defining feature at all. Even the Nazis, for example, believed that their movement would make a better world--albeit only for themselves.
In this passage, at any rate, Hooks (or "hooks" as she spelled her name in deference to her rejection of hierarchy) fails also to define "sexism," "exploitation" and "oppression," all three of which are tendentious because of their implicit meanings--as if hatred were impossible among women, as if the state were unwilling or unable to use men as natural resources, as if men could never be the victims of cruelty or injustice).
At the heart of feminism (and all political ideologies on both the Left and the Right) is a utopian mentality. In one way, an ideological utopia is the secular equivalent of a religious paradise. Both are ideals and therefore far from current reality. But religious ones cannot be realized within history at all (even though many religious communities try to approximate eternal and cosmic patterns to remind themselves of the remote past and/or the remote future, of what once was and/or what could be once again given ultimate liberation from the finitude of everyday life). Secular ideologies make no such metaphysical distinctions and must therefore be realized "by any means necessary" in the present or foreseeable future. Those who passively refuse to cooperate in this titanic historical struggle or even actively stand in the way of the utopian society are not merely foolish or blind, therefore, but also evil.
I don’t agree.
Most woman that dissatisfied with todays are likely because unreasonable payments, works, and social life, like low bare minimum wage and sexually abuse that spread in many space actively especially in public area.
Feminism is focused on individualistic rights not as a group, they make a group just for their voices got listen, just like an activist who had statements to say for their own good. a group that doesnt have soul but they're being indicates to their own believe that makes the own group had delightful for everyone
Those rights make women unhappy
The big problem is that the feminists are for feminist rights, but they got clever in the late 1960s and started calling themselves the "women's" movement. You can tell that they're not for women because they will viciously attack any woman who doesn't agree with them. They also don't support a lot of things that women do want. I think one of their biggest secrets is that there are a lot of men involved. For example, women in 1920 didn't give themselves the vote - men did that. Most women at the time actually opposed it (and for very interesting grounds).
There are men behind the feminist movement, and men's support, especially financial support from husbands and fathers, made famous feminist women able to access audiences. But considering how unpopular women's suffrage was among women of the late 19th and early 20th century, and that women did organize to try to oppose it, we have an example of how inadequate women actually are at political organizing in our own interests.
Women, even smart women, don't do the kinds of strategic thinking men do. Among chess grandmasters, only 5% are women. Among the top 500 e-sports players, zero are women, year after year. Neither chess nor e-sports require physical strength. Around 2010, feminist critics of supposed sexism in gaming were making a lot of noise. This is weird because there was an easy workaround - women could play online via male avatars, and nobody would know that player even was a woman. The reality was that women weren't much interested in video games, which rubbed feminists the wrong way.
The fact that so many women are openly expressing unhappiness, especially in matters of love and family, is a giant clue that feminism doesn't promote things women need and want - it promotes what feminists need and want.
"You can tell that they're not for women because they will viciously attack any woman who doesn't agree with them." Yes, Trish, and the most obvious examples are those women who "privilege" trans-women (that is, men who claim to be women), even at the cost of safety, over real women. That's the "logic" of intersectionalism.
It's true that feminism has not produced an ideological utopia for women (let alone an egalitarian one for women and men). Even so, I give feminists credit for their strategic cleverness and political sophistication. Never mind that their utopia is rapidly becoming a dystopia, partly due to the sudden and spectacular rise of closely allied ideologies under the umbrella of wokism or identity politics. All of these ideologies, following the paradigm established by feminism, have by now achieved more in Western countries (for good or ill), and done so more quickly, than any cultural revolution in history (including those of Mao, Lenin and Hitler). Not a single institution--the family, the law, the press, the church, the university, even the kindergarten--has been left standing as it was only half a century ago (within living memory). Thanks to these ideologies, we can no longer take for granted even the most universal and fundamental moral intuitions such as the difference between justice and revenge or the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would ..." or "Do not do unto others as you would not ...."); instead, we must defend them all over again as if we were re-inventing the wheel. At stake is no longer this or that group but Western civilization itself.
Looking at the strategic actions of feminists, especially since the 1960s, I strongly suspect that men with political aims of their own, have been directing the movement from behind the scenes.
Anything is possible, but you need some evidence for this conspiracy theory. What would men have to gain by orchestrating a movement that defines men as evil?
One more thought. Women did not vote themselves suffrage - that was men voting. At the time, up to 90% of American women opposed women voting. Even creating and operating their own anti-women’s vote organizations didn’t succeed.
Here’s some reasons for my suspicions:
Women, even highly intelligent women, are not good at strategic thinking. Of the top chess grandmasters, only 5% are women. In e-sports, year after year, the top 500 players includes no women. In history, the number of women who were effective political leaders is vanishingly small, and I can’t think of the name of a successful single female general.
Feminism is a divisive identity-driven movement. As we have seen recently, divisive identity-based politics are used by people who look like the supposed evil ones. Gavin Newsom is a white straight man, yet he goes along with a lot of identity politics.
Hugh Hefner, who was decried by feminists for publishing a magazine they identified as sexist, funded feminist causes such as free daycare.
Yes, Trish, but you haven’t answered my question. I still don’t see your point. You write that men “have been directing the movement from behind the scenes.” That would amount to conspiracy, after all, not merely opportunism. But a conspiracy to what end? To gain power for themselves as individuals at the expense of all other men? That could be true of Newsom and others of his kind, those who manage to combine personal ambition and vanity with stupidity, but you’d need some hard evidence nonetheless in order to demonstrate the more general claim that female feminists are nothing more than the dupes of male feminists.
Just because their movement is named for women doesn’t mean women run it or benefit from it. Women in the early 20th century overwhelmingly opposed women getting the vote. Women’s suffrage wasn’t an accomplishment of women, as it is portrayed today - it was enacted by men. Yet, today, it is held up as one of feminism or women’s great accomplishments, so much so that I only found out in the past year that 90% of US women opposed it.
Women of the post WWII era didn’t try to keep their factory jobs, they went to the suburbs to create the baby boom. Betty Friedan’s portrayal of those women as depressed and unhappy was not only unsupported by evidence, but motivated by her longstanding communist ideology. Gloria Steinem’s work and MS Magazine were financially supported by the men of the CIA. Remember that the communist revolution in Russia claimed to be a workers’ revolution, but the regime was not engineered or enacted by Russian workers, and workers under the Soviet Union suffered and died in massive numbers.
Just because the feminist movement in its current form demonizes men, doesn’t mean that this is the goal of all the men who participated in or assisted feminism in earlier eras. Even today, there are plenty of men who think that being a feminist an supporting feminism makes them one of the “good” ones.
Hmm.
Group rights (Palestine) Vs Individual rights (Israelis). Would this logic hold for that conflict?
No, that’s one groups rights vs the others. Tbh, if you boil down all the fabricated mythology (Zionism vs “colonial theory”), you get a typical, uninteresting story of one ethnic group invading another’s land and conquering them or kicking them out. Just another chapter in the long history of human violence.
I disagree, Chuck. Your point of view is reductive. There's nothing "typical" about the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.
Jews did not "invade" Palestine (which didn't exist, because it was ruled at first by the Ottoman Turks and then by the British). Some Jews had been living there for centuries. Others arrived from Europe and bought land--not from local Arab farmers, unfortunately, but from absentee landlords in Constantinople. Later on, the British (with the United Nations) partitioned the mandate territory into two states, one for the Jews and one (bigger and more fertile) for the Arabs. The surrounding Arab states objected. Wanting all of the land, not part of it, they invaded Israel with conquest in mind. During the conflict, some local Arabs were indeed forced by Israelis to leave. Others chose to leave, however, because their leaders promised them a quick victory, a return to their land and expulsion of all Jews. (At the same time, many of those countries expelled their own Jews, who fled to Israel as refugees--but were rapidly integrated, not segregated in refugee camps.) But many Arabs stayed where they were and became Israeli citizens with several of their own political parties in the Israeli parliament.
It all "boils down" to violence from the perspective of Hamas, sure, and even from that of many Gazans to this day (although they have begun to rebel against Hamas). But that's because the Palestinians have so far chosen an ideology that relies on violence rather than cooperation. Had they accepted partition on several occasions, both nations would now be living in peace with each other.
I guess it all depends on how you define feminism. My understanding is that feminism is about equal rights and the freedom to make your own choices. The fact that it is necessary to talk about female rights is because for a very long time in history, females weren’t given equal rights or were as protected from violence as men. And even though you might think that this problem is now solved, this is hardly the case in many countries (in Afghanistan for example, girls are not allowed to go to school). In fact, femicide, sexual assault and violence are still very real problems today for women. The reason why many females are not satisfied today is because advocating for equal rights in the past decades has not culminated in equal rights across the world.
Hi Mariska,
Thanks for the comment. You say:
>My understanding is that feminism is about equal rights ...
I'd encourage you to look at my first essay on Gender Equality.
Cheers
I'm gobsmacked by that Simone de Beauvoir quote. “We have more or less won”!
If this was more widely known, surely every last feminist would run and hide from embarrassment.
Feminists/women want more rights or privileges for some perceived disadvantage to men. It's like they should be completely independent of men with no acknowledgement of men. In the end they always need someone to take out the garbage.
"It's like they should be completely independent of men with no acknowledgement of men." Yes, Peter1, that's precisely what many feminists have always wanted: total independence from men. That includes not only financial independence but also emotional, spiritual, artistic and every other kind of independence. Of particular importance, though, is reproductive independence. Feminists want fathers to have no say at all in the fate of their unborn children. They argue that abortion should be strictly "between a woman and her doctor." Moreover, they believe that fathers are nothing more than assistant mothers (at best) and therefore have no inherent function within family life at all (except for their paychecks). Many feminists claim that men, per se, should have no say in anything at all to do with reproduction. This leaves men with no investment in family life and no reason to stick around their wives and children. Worse, it leaves men with no investment in the future of society itself and no reason to support any community. This is a recipe for societal collapse. And yet, people still wonder why men hesitate longer than ever, at least within living memory, before marrying women or even establishing enduring "relationships" with women.
The fact is that "independence" (or "autonomy") is a relative term in any study of human psychology. We need enough to function as individuals, sure, but not so much that we can't function with members of families, friends, colleagues or communities. Complete independence is both impossible and undesirable in any sexually dimorphic species. The whole point of culture in our species, after all, is to bring men and women (or other groups) together for the common good. This means inter-dependence, not independence.
Just imagine if a group of men split off from society(if our laws permitted that) and started their own city. They instituted laws to keep law and order and everyone worked. Soon the city becomes very successful even more than the old one. Even before that there are women who want into this new society. You know the old saying, where the boys go the girls will follow. There is one caveat to join this society: we must live within the confines of our biological dictates and enforce the laws. How many will join the new society? Eventually the old society would wither and disappear.
Excellent analysis!
Women don t deserve rights
Covid was an excellent example of the power of group rights. Those who chose to be injected were told they would be given all their rights to participate in society while those who refused were banished from social life, family life, work, travel etc. Fear was a powerful tool in coercing the population into compliance, not only to conform but to persecute those who wouldn't.
Time has proven that the government lied about the risks to people's safety and where the danger lay for some segments of the population. Sadly, there is still a mass psychosis within society that the unvaccinated are still a threat to their health. There are so many similarities to feminism as you have described in this essay.
The Human Rights commissioner was silent and the Worker's Unions locked their doors. Doctors were threatened with deregistration if they didn't vaccinate. It was a mass violation of human rights and the majority of society have no idea what took place. We all need to wake up to the erosion of our human rights even though in NSW we don't even have any. https://humanrightsfornsw.org/
Great work Tony.
A great summary nicely put together - I’ll never look at the Australian Group (Human) Rights Commission the same way again!