Feminism: The Bad, the Worse, and the Ugly

From: Jeff in England
Subject: LIES THAT BELIEF SYSTEMS ARE BLACK AND WHITE

LARRY: Your statement that feminism has not brought a good thing into this world is simplistic and simply wrong. I will reply in more detail to this shortly but sometimes your black and white analysis of movements and belief systems is shocking. You have a brilliant mind yet you sometimes choose to shut out things. Liberalism and feminism have had good things to offer depite their numerous flaws.

LA replies:

Sock it to me!

I’m eager to see you demonstrate one good thing that feminism has brought into the world that would not have happened without feminism.

Jeff writes:

Are we just talking about the West? The simplest one there is EQUAL WAGES FOR EQUAL WORK. That is not the same issue as whether women SHOULD work. Nor am I talking about jobs which women can be said to be inferior in such as the police. Let’s say teaching or telephone operators or even basic administration. I’m just saying if they do and can do the job roughly equivalently their wages should be the same as men’s. Feminism certainly played a role in making that happen in the U.S. and U.K. That is fair and just.

Now if you want to argue that equal wages for equal work is a bad thing well go ahead.

LA writes:

For the sake of discussion I’ll accept your premise that equal wages for equal work is a good thing, though there are traditionalist arguments to be made against it. From the mid 20th century forward there was a general movement toward the atomization of society into rights-bearing individuals and the non-discriminatory treatment of such individuals. Under the conditions of modern liberalism,equal wages for equal work would have happened had there never been an organized feminist movement, and it would have happened without all the Sturm und Drang.

LA writes:

I asked Jim Kalb what he thought of this exchange and he wrote back:

Something pervasive can hardly fail to bring some good things, or so it seems to me. I would have phrased the point differently. Maybe “feminism has brought enormous destruction and no significant benefits that could not have been better achieved otherwise.”

Jeff writes:

Though I am not an expert in the particulars of this issue, I recognise that there have been other movements in play for attaining equality of wages etc.

However at various times (over a long period) different aspects of that equality of wages were addressed and I would think that modern feminism helped certain inequalities be removed especially regarding women. In other words, while there may have been a general trend towards equal wages, feminism had an an effect on certain situations and on certain levels. I don’t have the information to hand but it would be extremely unlikely if feminism didn’t play a significant role in increasing women’s wages in relation to men in conjunction with other movements. Are you saying that feminism had no effect on any equality of wages scenario? And that feminism hasn’t been a part of or associated with the modern liberalism movement?

In addition, I assume you are referring to the United States while I was considering Europe as well. Finally, If one brings in non-European and non-American countries, then surely feminism is having an effect on wages as we speak.

LA replies:

Even if we accept Jeff’s statement that feminism in the actual event, at least in some situations, did help advance equality of wages for women, the point is satisfactorily answered by Jim Kalb’s comment: the same could and would have been achieved without feminism, and without all the accompanying destructiveness.

Dennis Mangan (of Mangan’s Miscellany) writes:

I fear that Jeff has not thought through what he believes about the “good” that feminism has wrought. Who is paying “equal wages”? For the most part, it’s private employers being forced by the government to do this. In a just world, the prices of both labor and goods would be set by the free market, not a feminist-agitated government. Furthermore, unless one job is exactly equal to anoher in terms of educational and skill requirements, working conditions, hours, stress, and so on, they are not equal. The blog Eternal Bachelor http://eternalbachelor.blogspot.com/2007/02/mine-blast.html notes that all of those killed in a recent mine blast in Colombia were men; women just won’t do that kind of work, and yet feminists complain constantly that women need more money.

Jeff writes:

Another good example of this simplistic thinking on feminism is David H stating: “the fact that feminists have viciously attacked Christianity and Christian traditions.” Well there are many who haven’t. What about the fact that there are many “Christian Feminists”? Google the term and read about them. Many feminists (Christian or not) might criticise parts of the New Testament which are outdated and unjust in regard to women. But that is different than a vicious attack.

Most feminists (Christian or not) would also acknowledge that there are many good things in the New Testament. Few feminists would dismiss it outright or dismiss Christianity outright. As for the Christian churches and organisations over the milleniums, most people would now agree that women have been treated badly in certain aspects and at times barbarically (witness the witch burnings). One can argue too that feminism’s “attacks” on certain aspects of Christianity (especially the Churches) have led to women assuming “equal” roles in many Churches and Christian homes and communities and even assuming leadership roles in those institutions. Again, some people may still feel that is a bad thing but on the whole most people in the West feel it is a good thing.

That some feminists and strands of feminism have gone overboard in their quest for “equality” within a Christian context is indisputable. Even many feminists accept that now.That feminism has a “dark side” is also beyond debate. Ditto for Christianity and every major movement in history. Which is not to say that all movements are equivalent. Let’s get some perspective here and look at things in a more balanced way.

More accurate definitions of terms is needed in many of the comments by readers in VFR. Terms like feminism can mean so many different things and have so many strands within it. In my opinion to call feminism evil is to ignore real evil. By any sensible standards, feminism is far from the top of the list of evil movements. Political movements like Nazism and and Communism have been truly evil. Ditto spiritual movements like Satanism. The Catholic Church in the past has acted in evil ways. Islam has evil within it and Muslims have acted evil over many centuries and that is continuing. I would not use the term evil in regard to feminism even if it has severe flaws and has had certain negative effects on society.

Finally, I agree that feminists with a few exceptions have been far too easy on the Koran and Islam which has treated women in a far worse manner than the Old or New Testaments.

LA replies:

Jeff’s arguments in defense of feminism are mostly generic liberal arguments, and, I must say, extremely weak.

1. He defends “Christian feminists.” But any “Christian feminist” is by definition a person who is seeking to inject feminism into Christianity, which means a critique of the “male-centric” nature of traditional Christianity, and a demand for female priests, “female-centered” liturgy, “gender-neutral” Bible translations and all the rest of it. In brief, demands that are thoroughly negative and destructive of Christianity.

2. Jeff implies that feminism is needed to avoid witch burnings. Gosh, Jeff, witch burnings ended at least two centuries before feminism was even conceived.

3. He writes: “That feminism has a ‘dark side’ is also beyond debate. Ditto for Christianity and every major movement in history. Which is not to say that all movements are equivalent.” If Christianity’s dark side is not equivalent to that of feminism, why bring in the pointless point that both feminism and Christianity have had dark sides? That’s a standard liberal relativist type of argument that is constantly used to undermine our side. For example, Islam apologists constantly say, “Christianity has its dark side too.” It’s a statement which makes it impossible to make decisive judgments about Islam, and makes it impossible to stand for the Christian world against the Muslim world. And here Jeff is using the same kind of argument on behalf of feminism.

4. Jeff says: “Terms like feminism can mean so many different things and have so many strands within it.” That’s another standard liberal-nominalist argument: we can’t make definite statements about feminism because there are so many different feminisms. In the same way, Daniel Pipes says we can’t make definite statements about Islam because Islam is whatever Muslims say it is. In reality, feminism is not indeterminate. As I heard Phyllis Schlafly say once, in response to a female college student who used the same argument that Jeff has just used, feminism is that which the leading recognized feminists say feminism is and that which is broadly recognized as feminism. Individuals do not have the right to invent their own private feminism and then cry, “You’re being unfair to feminism, because MY feminism is not like that,” any more than they have the right to say, “You’re being unfair to Islam, because MY Islam is not like that!” There is a historic, substantial reality that is feminism, just as there is a historic, substantial reality of Islam.

5. Jeff says: “In my opinion to call feminism evil is to ignore real evil,” and he then devotes an entire paragraph to that point. But no one in this discusion called feminism evil.

Alex H. writes: “Here’s one for Jeff in England.”

The story Alex sends, by Ted Byfield in the Calgary Sun, tells about true feminism in action, and is literally unbelievable. Here’s the first half of the article:

We can’t take this affront sitting down
’You guys are being feminized, and you don’t even know it.’
By TED BYFIELD

When I first read this story, translated as I recall from a German newspaper, I simply could not believe it.

Europeans were lately becoming somewhat strange, I knew, but surely not that strange.

The article described Germany’s new unisex public lavatories, where there are no urinals, and if you lift up the toilet seat, you are admonished by an automated electronic voice:

“You know you are not supposed to stand.

“Please sit down!”

From the peculiar viewpoint of those who plan our New Social Order, with its insistence on sexual “equality,” I suppose such insanity makes sense.

My own first thought was that if they didn’t want males to stand, the obvious expedient would be an immoveable toilet seat.

That sociological washroom designer may have looked deep into the male mind, however, and discerned that this could just bring out the worst in him.

Furious, he might proceed regardless and inevitably (perhaps deliberately) spray the seat. (“Take that, you creep!”)

Better to use another tried and true avenue.

Work on his guilt.

Hence the voice.

Even so, I could scarcely believe it.

The Germans?

Twice the terror of Europe in the 20th century—the wild, savage and often morally puritanical barbarians who destroyed most of Europe in the fifth and sixth centuries—now intimidated by societal pressure to pee sitting down?

Not a chance.

Until last week, that is, when I was confronted with grave cause to realize the story might be true.

This revelation did not occur in Germany, however, but in Clarkson, Ont., a Toronto suburb. [cont]

I’ll just tell you this: the second half of the story is even more unbelievable than the first half.

Laura W. writes, chastizing me:

You seem to hold “equal wages for equal work” as some exalted ideal, ignoring the historical reasons why men were paid more than women for equal work. They were paid more because men typically had to support women and children, not necessarily because women were assumed to produce inferior work. One of the great triumphs of feminism was to erase all recall of this reasoning and to convince us that unequal pay was an expression of contempt for women. Only a deeply materialistic view of the world could have put forth this devious argument.

I agree with Jeff that feminism brought about equality of wages. To say otherwise is nonsensical. I do not agree with Jeff’s assumption that this is an advance. In a saner world, men between the ages of, say, 25 and 60 would be paid more than women for equal work, a reality that would be enforced, not by government, but by convention. At the same time, given the challenges of raising and educating children—particularly in this most barbaric age—women would devote every fiber of their being to restoring civilization (or at least adequately feeding their children and maybe turning off the television now and then). This is a life-consuming project. Most women now cannot afford to do more than dabble in the cause. By entering the job market in unprecedented numbers—and being paid as much as men—women have created unbearable financial pressures on the average family. The family—and our entire culture—has become a dreary, soulless landscape as a result. But, at least women are paid as much as men!

LA replies:

Laura is entirely correct. Her argument goes to the very center of the difference between liberalism, which builds society according to a notion of atomistic, interchangeable individuals all possessing abstract equal rights, and traditionalism, which builds society according to an understanding of human nature and the substantive requirements of the good life. As I had indicated, I had accepted Jeff’s earlier assertion of the goodness of equal pay for equal work only for the sake of argument. I’m glad I said nothing on the substantive point, because Laura has expressed it far better than I could have done. However, I am still inclined to believe that even if there had never been a feminist movement, the general trends of liberalism would still have led to equal pay for equal work.

Jeff writes:

CAN’T REPLY TONITE AM WATCHING SUPERBOWL…ENJOY YOUR TEMPORARY DEBATING VICTORY!! AND UNLIKE SPENCER or YERUSHALMI OR ANY OTHER SUSPECTS I WON’T COMPLAIN!!

LA replies:

OK. I’LL ENJOY IT WHILE IT LASTS … THANKS FOR THE REPRIEVE …

Martin writes:

Another point about equal wages for equal work: It’s true that as women entered the work-force, their wages became more nearly equal to men for comparable work (although they haven’t entered every field—with the exception of lesbians, very few women become plumbers for example). But the wages of everyone necessarily went down as a result. The inexorable law of supply and demand has consequences. If the size of the workforce is doubled (by adding women to it), then employers can get away with paying everyone less as a result. It only shows up job-by-job, but the decline in wages in any one occupation eventually puts downward pressure on others as well.

Even in Victorian times, a clerk could support a family (Bob Cratchit may have been fictional, but he was probably not completely invented). The job of clerk has now become that of … secretary, a predominantly female occupation, and the stereotypical holder of such a job is the struggling single mom.

It should also be obvious to everyone that since the advent of women voting, society has become more “nice.” No, not that we’ve really become nicer, but that nice-ness—caring, compassion, warm-and-fuzzy feelings all round—have become social goods. This may have had the advantage of—at least since 1945—preventing men from running off to start and fight the insane, evermore brutal wars that—at various times—characterized Western civilization from the 14th through the 20th centuries. However it has unmanned us as a society, preventing us from doing the—often not-very-nice, and even down-right distasteful—things necessary to maintain a decent society. Things like: fighting those wars that need to be fought, hanging men who need to be hanged, keeping outsiders out, penalizing and stigmatizing the lazy, the incompetent, and the immoral, and generally being a little hard-hearted.

Alan M. writes:

Ironically, in the quest for a bigger house and better lifestyle with dual incomes, it seems that the majority of gains in income have been swallowed up house prices with higher mortgages, leaving everyone no better off financially and, arguably, worse off socially, spiritually, morally, etc.

Great blog by the way. I’m not sure how I found it but you’re in my RSS reader now

Mark P. writes:

You stated that you were fairly certain that equal pay for equal work would’ve emerged anyway without feminism because of the atomised “individual rights” world that liberalism was building.

You are actually right because that is what corporations wanted. As “Martin” wrote, adding women depresses wages and wage depression adds to the bottom line.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 03, 2007 09:11 PM | Send