Feminism in 2015

Yeah...I think feminist evaluations of history is myopic in it's approach by suggesting that men have always oppressed women and that men "have always had all the power". That is simply not the case anymore...if it ever was. That fight is over. Rights are no longer denied. Things are moving in the other direction. The oppressed are becoming the oppressor. And MOST people throughout all of history have been powerless to the forces that be. Feminism was and always will be a movement of the rich; it is not founded on inclusion, it's approaches are flawed, it's name is fundamentally valuing femininity over masculinity, and I think it's high time we seriously consider just getting over the name itself. I do not consider myself a feminist. 

Let me be clear here: I am specifically speaking in context of the United States and other post-industrial societies. This criticism does not extend to issues that are beyond those borders. This is one of the reasons I criticize the myopathy of these rhetorical methods.

I believe in equality and I believe we're closer to achieving that than we ever have been. I think the patriarchy is finished. Those ladies won their war. Check out the work of Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, and Camille Paglia - all prominent feminists in their own right for more than 40 years and modern "third-wave" feminists are calling them heretics and gender traitors.

I've been called a "gender traitor" and been told I was "triggering" for daring to even discuss the inequalities in the application of various policies regarding domestic violence and rape. The idea that everyone feels the need to equivocate the notion that women are equally as violent as men infuriates me and every feminist I know does it. We discount the fact that men are four times more likely to commit suicide and ten times more likely to be homeless than a woman.

Feminists I see, not basement dwellers - mainstream media: The Huffington Post, Slate.com, SALON.com, Democracy Now!, etc...places I used to go...and feministing.org, feministfrequency.com, jezebel.com, everydayfeminism.com, etc...they're all littered with these ideas. 

Jessica Valenti is invited over and over again to speak and she is the most classist, myopic, nit-witted, ninny-picker I've ever seen. "Women shouldn't be taxed on tampons and we're oppressed because we HAVE to wrap presents." No, you don't. Oh, should I also mention how she's a white middle class girl with two kids and her husband is a lawyer? Can we say, "first world problems much?"

Anita Sarkeesian is another one that feminists have allowed to take some honored place among their ranks, and various industries are rewarding her half-assed, hack work that hasn't even fulfilled the obligations she laid forth in her Kickstarter campaign. She's a con-artist and a liar and a cherry-picker and a pathetic excuse for an "academic". Her work on "the misogyny of video game culture" is a fucking joke.

I've already discussed her work, so you're welcome to read that here.
Manplaining, manspreading, man-what-the-fuck-ever. It's a fucked up thing to say and contributes to the idea that these are "male behaviors". It is based on the assumption that the reason someone did something is because they are masculine, i.e. functionally a man. It's engendering an entire pattern of behavior that is not fundamentally gendered.

Approaching the problem of higher crime in black neighborhoods from the perspective of asking "what about them being black is causing the problem" is as unacceptable and as bigoted as "what is it about men that has caused them to commit crimes" that have been shown to be equal, all things the same. But I digress.

Many of the laws that were in place that denied rights were often at the thought of protecting and providing for women. Even anti-suffragists thought the primary reason women shouldn't vote is because politics was dirty work and women weren't meant for that. There were policies in place, but by and large history is made up of complex dynamics wherein both men and women held various stations above one another with rights and privileges associated with middle and upper class individuals. It wasn't simply a matter of men having all dominance in the home.

Unfortunately, many policies of recent date are proposing the same kind of paternal oversight into the private lives of others, such as affirmative consent laws here in California and I know this comes from both sides. The right with their resistance to gay marriage, for example...what do I care what you do in the privacy of your own home. But I digress...bring me any issue. I'll show you what we're doing wrong.

Campus Assault? Rape? Prison management? Suicide? Homelessness? Unemployment? Education? The school to prison pipeline? Affirmative Consent? Let's talk. 

So, here's the thing for me...there are glimpses of history wherein a balance between the sexes was found (and in many cultures, plenty of space for gender nonconformity and intersexed individuals). I view the realms of femininity and masculinity were not seen as solid, concrete things to smash, but fluid, dynamic things that saw people come and go in their relationship dynamics, expressing more masculine or more feminine attitudes and behaviors depending on who they are interacting with. Think about it: in your relationships, there are some where you are more dominant, some where you are more submissive. Human beings are not static and we are a blend of these two spheres of expression, just as we are a blend of our parents DNA.