The 21st century is knocking at the barricaded door of feminism. It falls to renegades within the movement, like me, to shatter windows so a new generation can flow in like fresh air.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I am too stubborn to let a fine tradition and a good word be relinquished to politically correct feminists who crusade for legal privilege and against equality.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The liberated woman of the 21st century does not resemble the ghosts haunting '80s feminism. Who is she? She is the estimated 17 million women who control their own self-defense by owning guns; the mothers of children who are schooled at home; the stay-at-home moms who sacrifice careers to pursue more personal values; the entrepreneurs and career women who rise through merit and reject the concept of "victim."

The 21st-century feminist is anyone — female or male — who rejects gender privilege and demands real equality for men and women under the law. She makes her own choices and takes personal responsibility for them, without asking government for protection or tax dollars.

In fact, many of them pay a forfeit to government as part of making their own choices: Homeschoolers pay taxes to support a public school system they do not use. They also pay a cost in social stigma: Female gun enthusiasts and stay-at-home moms are looked down upon by ancien regime feminism. They are often encumbered by laws that "protect" them. For example, the businesswomen and professionals who are diminished by a lurking suspicion that affirmative action, not competence, accounts for their success.

What are the goals of this new grassroots feminism that is generally ignored or deplored by the ancien regime?

There are at least four ends toward which 21st-century feminism should be striving:

The removal of all laws that distinguish and discriminate between the sexes. Today, such laws generally privilege women at the expense of men, most notably in hiring practices and family law — e.g. child custody practices. Real equality under the law is a first and necessary step toward ending the gender war that politically correct feminists declared in the 20th century.
A vigorous defense of choice for every woman who takes personal responsibility for her own decisions, whether she becomes a stay-at-home mom or the CEO of a top-40 company. Government should remove the obstacles it has placed in the way of women's choices, including the decision to own a gun or to run a business out of her home. No one should be hindered by laws or taxes that target such choices.
The opening of civil discourse on issues of vital interest to women, such as abortion. On the pro-choice side, this means renouncing government sponsorship of abortion through tax dollars. On the pro-life side, this means denouncing all use of violence against anyone connected with abortion.
A "welcome" sign for men must be posted on the door of feminism. They are fathers, mates, sons, friends, and neighbors. It is folly to "solve" a human problem without consulting and co-operating with one-half of the species.
A question arises: Why even call such a movement "feminism?" I hear this question regarding my own choice of self-label: individualist feminism or ifeminism. Let me explain.

The history of feminism in America has rich and honorable roots in the 19th century anti-slavery movement (circa 1830). In working to throw off black slavery, abolitionist women — many of whom were Quakers — became politically aware of their own legal oppression. A tract by the Quaker Sarah Grimke, Legal Disabilities of Women, compared the wording of laws that ruled slaves with those that then ruled women. The similarities were shocking.

But abolitionist women did not argue for privileges for women to replace legal obstacles. In a famous statement, Angelina Grimke, Sarah's sister, asked only for man to take his foot off the neck of woman. These early feminists argued for women's rights on the grounds of self-ownership. They believed every human being, simply by being human, had an equal right to his or her own body and the labor thereof. In short, they demanded equality under just law.

This is what "feminism" meant at its birth. It is what the word means to me now. I am too stubborn to let a fine tradition and a good word be relinquished to politically correct feminists who crusade for legal privilege and against equality.

The 21st century is the death knell of politically correct feminism. The ancien regime will not advocate the removal of discriminatory laws because those laws constitute their hard-purchased victories. They cannot champion gun ownership or housewifery because their theories pathologize those choices. They are not open to opening discourse on abortion, even around the edges, because they have made abortion the litmus test of what it means to be a feminist.

They will never accept the validity of men as feminists because their ideology is based on a class analysis that makes men a separate and politically antagonistic group.

The ancien regime is dead but it will leave with no more grace than it entered. The politics of rage will scream all the louder because it sees that no one is listening. And it will take years to heal the devastation it has wrought.

Perhaps, children now being born will adopt the label "feminist" as adults. If they do so, it will be for the same reason their parents rejected it: They respect individual choice and accept personal responsibility.

source http://www.liberator.net/articles/McElroyW...centuryfem.html

I'm going to choose to ignore this thread, as I really don't wanna get started on what modern day feminism REALLY IS through the risk of being heckled.

But there is a feminism debate im involved in which you might like roswell. I'd happily vent my feelings there

Feminism is an interesting topic these days, since it seems as though in most developed countries that we're all equal. We can all do the same type of jobs, vote, stay at home, anything. But some people seem to be fighting to put women above men, which I don't agree with.

Of course there are still some gender bias in society, there are few women in the skilled trades just like there are few men working at day care centres.

I'm more than happy with where we are now. I'm happy that we've had women fight for us in the 60's, because it's really made a difference in my generation.

I fully agree Disintrested. Equal should mean equal, and although in LEDC's there is a lot of work towards that, here in the western world we're prettey much there.

We are not all equal. I belive they call that queen woman, Royal Highness, which I hate. She is no better than any of us.

What does that have to do with gender equality?

I was about to ask the same question... :S

Walken said something about LEDCs not having equality, but we do. Also, Female rulers were looked down on before, so things definitely have improved, even though I don't agree with calling some one 'Your Highness' not matter who or what they are. You're right, things are better for women now, but there will never be true equality for anyone, so long as people like feminists exist.

.... I still don't get it.

Honestly, we're talking about feminism and you're talking about a queen? Do you also have a problem with judges being called 'your honour' or the president being called 'your excellency'?

I was talking about LEDC's not haveing gender eqallity; what does that have to do with the queen?

No they wern't, a ruler is a ruler; looked down upon by none.

I agree with that last statement; Modern feminism, or as I sometimes call it, Fem-Nazi, is a horrible horrible way. Walken has a lot of quotes which he has to save for his debate.

Feminists want equality, but some want to be above men, as someone said, and I was stating that although things have improved, they aren't perfect, because of people like extreme feminists.

Of course it's not perfect, but I think we're pretty much there. Some people are trying to take it too far, but they're in the minority.

Agreed. ...But where does the queen come into it?

Uh-huh; we'll never be completley there, but I think we've got it nailed right about now.

Yeah, I do think things are better. But without feminism, we wouldn't be able to have jobs, vote or be equal, so it is not all bad. I just don't think it is necessary in countries like Britain and America, and other MEDCs, to believe that women need more rights.

Agreed.

Agreed.

we in the westr may be seeing improvements in equality for women, but other countries do not seem to be moving in the right direction, which is a concern.

Maybe this is extreme, but I don't like it when guys pull out chairs for girls to sit on, or help them out of cars etc, but that is just my weird self.

Things are not as equal as some think. My sister is currently in a lawsuit against the company she was vice president of because she found out that three of her male employees were being paid more. There is a very good chance she will win.

That is not extream, that is sad. No offence, but that doesnt really mean they;re doing it just because its a lady. And plus, its a kind and polite act. Geez, thats worse than calling a guy a potentiol rapist just because he has a penis :S

Perhaps, but the pay gap is closeing very quickly, as evident by recent statistics here in England. It's just an aftershadow of the old societey.

Recently My friend said that if there was true equallity then why arent there girls football team leagues.

I said 'There are, and they're a mulit-million pound buisness to'

To which she said 'Then why arent they as popular as mens football teams?'

So I said 'Because people prefer to see the teams they've grown up supporting'.

She said that was sexist, so I said; Why don't you go and see a team then?

'I don't like football. Besides, I support Arsnel'.

sum women wont 2 b treated exactly like men do.

Hey, thats just one of my very many weird ways. You giving me the cold shoulder?

Femanism is just female chauvanism.

Hey, thats actually a good way to put it.

It is good in limited amounts though, but I am a believer in equal rights, and true freedom.

Socialism is really the real ideology of equality.

A person's status in life is decided by control of resources. Male, female, black, white doesn't matter if you are rich or poor. A homeless man will be treated by society like crap compared to a rich woman, gender doesn't really come into it.

Socialism advocates the spread of resources to all members of society, and thus does away with the source of discrimination.

Good way of putting it, but I prefer hypocritical sexism.

It's occurred to me that perhaps Condoleeza Rice (hear me out here) is a good indicator of how far we've come in America. I mean, we have a black woman for Secretary of State, and she is widely disliked for her politics. Twenty years ago she would have been hated for her race and/or gender. Ten years ago she would have been celebrated for what she accomplished in spite of her race and/or gender. Now, nobody gives a dang about her race and/or gender. They're just concerned with her politics.

(Edit: For the record, btw, I think it's sweet if a guy pulls out a chair for me or opens a door. I would never expect them to, of course.)

yeah, but most western countries have that. Thatcher in the UK wasn't despised for being female, she was despised because she was a celtic-hating Nazi.

Talon, I didn't mean to imply that America has come farther than other Western nations. I have no way to judge where we are in relation to one another. I was only commenting on where we are now in relation to where we used to be.

After learning about women being stoned to death in other countries, Moe finds himself feeling no pity for the western feminist who screams sexual harrassment.

Your right Talon.

Just recently I asked my 'feminist' friend who her favourite prime minister was, to which she responded 'Thatcher'. I was amazed at this, and so asked why, to which she responded 'Because she was a woman.'

Later I asked if she even knew anything about Thatcher, to which she responded 'Well she couldn't have been worse than any of the male prime ministers' :roll:

If an extreme feminist is arguing about, for arguments sake lets say football teams not being integrated, how is that hypocritical? It is stupid, but they aren't being hypocrites.

I don't think it is very just that there hasn't been a female prime minister since Margaret Thatcher, but on the other hand, Condolezza Rice is probably one of the most powerful woman in the world, and look at all the people who are willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in the next election. I couldn't care less about them, but it is good that women are now being accepted.

That example wasnt relevent to the term.

Say a man said 'all woman are weak and they only care about makeup' then the woman responded 'men', she'd equally be stereotypeing him.

Ah, I see. I thought you were referring to something else, never mind.

But what does the guy expect, when he has said that?

That was just an example

It could be any number of things.

Ok dude.

There are certainly some situations in which I would hate to be treated like a man would be, like I do not believe that men should hit women, whether it is domestic violence or in any argument. But if the girl lashes out first, what else can she expect? And I have heard cases of domestic violence, where it has been the women attacking her male partner, and because of the mens moral views, they would not hit the women back.

Uh-huh. Tis all too common. In some ways, the legal system is still very sexist, especially with child laws and demostic laws (FATHERS 4 JUSTICE for instance).

Oh those Fathers for Justice people are so right. I don't even like kids, but it broke my heart to see those dads not being able to see their own children. Of course, it is very different if the father has been cruel or has abused the children. Even if it ends up with the mother gaining custody, the father should be allowed access to the child. I don't think any one thinks of how the children might feel about not seeing their daddies.

Uh-huh, but their way of going about it really takes the seriousness of their cause and steps on it.

Good example of why I don't consider myself a femanist...modern femanism has little in the way of reasoning behind it

lol, amen to that