Feminism, once a movement for female empowerment and liberation has morphed into the very antithesis of all that it once stood for.
In the later parts of the 19th century the women’s movement was born. In Britain the suffragettes and the suffragists fought for female emancipation, for freedom, liberty and equal rights. Through the activism of the suffragists and the militancy of the suffragettes, female suffrage was achieved through two acts of parliament in the early part of the last century. On top of this numerous pieces of legislation have been passed which guaranty women equal rights under the law.
This achieved amidst much resistance. Having just finished reading through the works of the great philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, a man with an intellect rivalling any alive during his time and indeed in any time, it is shocking to me to see some of his views on women. In Beyond Good and Evil he is quoted amidst a cacophony of misogyny as saying “From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty.” This from a man with a mind as open as a mind can be. Reading his thoughts gives one an understanding of the climate of hostility, towards female empowerment, at the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the women’s movement.
There were of course a few prominent thinkers who held the opposing view to Nietzsche. The English philosopher John Stuart Mill believed (Influenced heavily by his wife and fellow philosopher Harriet Taylor Mill and his step daughter the feminist writer Helen Taylor) that the right to vote should only be denied to barbarians and the uneducated. The arguments he makes in his Magnus-Opus On Liberty he applied to both men and women. Mill used his position as a member of parliament to demand the vote for women. As inferred however, Mill was the exception, not the rule. Most of his peers across the western world, were at the time, hostile to female suffrage.
Having the benefit of hindsight, observing the modern world and last century it is clear that the naysayers have been proven to be categorically wrong. Far from being the disaster that the vox populi of the 19th century would have predicted. Female empowerment has led to a golden age of prosperity. As the late great Christopher Hitchens stated over and over again “We’re the first generation of people who do really know what the cure for poverty is. It eluded people for a long, long time. The cure for poverty has a name, in fact. It’s called the empowerment of women.”
To those that question the female temperament and its suitability to power, we Britain’s produced arguably the greatest political leader of modern times, Margaret Thatcher. A giant of a political figure. Listening to Margaret Thatcher on YouTube, one cannot help but feel total dismay at the weakness of today’s political leadership. And that she succeeded the weak, incompetent Edward Heath as Conservative party leader further compounds the argument that being a women is no impediment to leadership. Indeed competence (and for that matter incompetence) transcends gender.
Understanding all of this then, it is rather peculiar to see what the women’s movement has become. In achieving its original aims, the only people left fighting on are the extremists. The feminists of today bear little resemblance to their predecessors. They are by and large privileged middle class women with a proclivity for neo-marxist authoritarianism. Mediocre women who are more closely matched with the thugs that initiated the coup d’etat in Russia in October 1917. The similarities in ideology are so close as to be near identical.
Marxism with its politics of envy, identity and of the rejection of the individual. Take the bourgeoisie and replace it with men. Take capitalism and replace it with the patriarchy. Take the individual women and replace her with the sisterhood. Then you see that you have modern feminism i.e. Marxism under a cloak of invisibility. And it isn’t just men that these women hate, it is other women also, the wrong type of woman of course, just as the affluent peasants of Ukraine, the kulak’s were sent to Siberia, lumped in with middle classes women who do well under the current system are accused of internalised misogyny, every bit as problematic as the evil men of our patriarchal society.
Take the recent cases of the forced unemployment of the darts walk on girls and formula one’s grid girls. These are, to the feminists who have forced this change, the wrong type of woman. Women who trade on their looks and sexuality to get by. The fact that these women take on these jobs and are employed through voluntary choice means nothing to these ideologues. The green eyed monster corrupts all of their thinking.
To state the patently obvious. We can’t all be members of parliament or CEO’s of FTSE 100 companies. That other people use whatever comparative advantage nature has given them to get by on their own two feet, should be commended. That other women can go out and get paid well for this type of work does not stop you as an individual woman becoming a lawyer, a doctor, an academic, an MP or an entrepreneur. To stop others doing things that have no effect on you because you have a moral objection, is a violation of the liberty of your fellow woman. Precisely the sort of thing that the original feminists argued against.
This made all the worse for the hypocrisy of the modern feminist. Why is it that it is ok for Emma Watson to flash her breasts in Vogue and not ok for working class grid girls to use their feminine beauty? Pontificating on this question, the only conclusion that I come to, is that these are not really women who believe in female empowerment in the general sense. Rather they are snobby middle class women, who have both a disdain for the working class and an entitled attitude to wealth and power.
If you read through Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago you will see that this type of thinking was exactly where the dictators Lenin and Stalin drew their support. It is much more expedient to blame the other for your failure’s in life, than it is to take responsibility.
I do not watch the darts or the motor racing but I do feel a sense of sadness for those working class women who have lost and are about to lose their jobs at the altar of this pernicious belief system. The most perverse thing in all of this is that undermining and weakening women’s sexual power benefits men, not women.
The Gender Pay Gap?
At the time of writing this, a case has been brought to the courts against the supermarket chain Tesco. The case centres around the fact that Tesco’s warehouse employees (mainly men) are paid more than Tesco’s checkout staff (mainly women). That any serious attorney can think that there is a case here is an outrage. Of course no reasonable person would object to equal pay for equal produce in the same job, these are two different roles and therefore should never be comparable. It is an indictment of our education system how little the general public understands economics.
Equality of outcome across roles can only be achieved with tyrannical government but comes at a huge price. If the government were to take on a course of action with the explicit aim of seeking to make us all equal, the government must then remove our individuality. In doing so it kills off the ability of the most talented amongst us to innovate, to think differently, to act as dissidents and to move society forward. Yes, the most talented includes the highest class of female. It is therefore not the interest of women who are truly gifted to have mediocrity artificially inflated by the state.
The free market does not care about your gender, race or sexuality. If there is a shortage of good quality people wanting to take on the available warehouse roles, the market price adjusts upwards until supply equals demand. The same is true for checkout workers in reverse, if there are more people willing to take on roles at the checkout than there are available roles the price adjusts downwards. If those who work on the checkout wish to earn a higher wage, they are perfectly at liberty to apply to warehouse roles. If enough of them do this the wage difference between the two roles will tighten. The fact that there is this discrepancy is a result of the magic of the market adjusting prices to efficiently allocate resource, based on our individual decisions.
If we go down the road of politicians and judges setting prices we move into the realm of central command which we know leads on a micro level, to shortages and surplus in individual areas and on a macro level, to a decrease in the general output of the economy. In plain terms this means, higher prices, higher unemployment and lower productivity. All of us are hurt when governments interfere in the markets in this way. It is what has happened in every socialist state there has ever been. When thinking on this, surely one see’s that feminism as it is today and Marxism are analogous to the same thing. From freedom to tyranny!