This article is from HerbertPurdy.com and of course was written by Herbert Purdy.
I am a great admirer of Christina Hoff Sommers. She is an intelligent, articulate and brave woman, who stands implacably opposed to what she calls ‘Gender Feminism’, as I do . However, increasingly, her position is becoming untenable in my respectful submission.
When she wrote Who Stole Feminism, around twenty years ago now, the zeitgeist was different. Her so-called ‘Equity Feminism’, seemed like a valid alternative to the Gender Feminism she so castigates, but time has shown that Gender Feminism is the real deal that we have bought lock, stock and barrel.
As time has gone by, we are now seeing what feminism has been all along. It’s real intent is to overthrow the basic framework of our lives and re-shape society – all as Marx and Engels intended from the outset. “The woman question’ was always a key element in the development of Marxist revolutionary theory, and so was the creation of ‘an openly legalised community of women’. It is there for all to see in the 1848 Communist Manifesto.
Feminism in all its forms nowadays is revolutionary. It has set women against men. CHS herself has said many times that feminism has ‘divided society along the fault-line of gender’, and it stands to reason that you cannot set one half of the human race against the other and not expect serious consequences.
The most important thing to acknowledge about feminism, however it is labelled, is its results in society. It has brought about is the breakdown of the institution of marriage and the family, that stable means by which children are brought up in an individual economic unit, by two heterosexual parents who are committed to each other, as well as to the task of bringing up children, so those children can grow up to become fully-functioning adults, and then go on to build a future stable society.
Feminism (which is really another expression of communism), is deeply embedded in utopianism. It is fundamentally opposed to all forms of society built on the nuclear family. It wants – well, communism – community living, no private property, children in common ownership of the community not their parents, women in the workforce rather than being homemakers, and all so it can shape society to be communists. The ‘bourgeois’ nuclear family blocks this.
The fight against patriarchy is really the fight against fathers – and the father as head of the family (the very term means the ‘rule of the father’, not the rule of men as many people believe). It is a ‘straw man’ argument (one put up to be shot down) and it is a pure Marxian construct that conflates the ideas of the struggle between the proletariat (the working classes aka the underdog) and capitalism with the alleged struggle between women (the underdog) and men (the powerful).
This was a deliberately and openly contrived construct of Frederich Engels (it is in his papers) intended to provide a coherent central message for ‘the revolution’ against marriage and social stability that he and Marx hatched in a window seat in Chetham’s Library in Manchester in the nineteenth century.
It was part of the cause to which women could rally, but they were duped. Anyone who believes feminism is about righting the historical wrongs perpetrated by men against women has bought a lie, and anyone who thinks feminism has actually improved society is a dupe.
My reading of CHS is that she is a traditional conservative. She might even be seen as a Neocon. Yet she still seems to hold to the view that there is a ‘good’ feminism and a ‘bad’ one. When it is all boiled down, and the residue at the bottom of the pan is examined, however, the truth is, all feminism is anathema to her values (which I, and many others share).
In the interim between Who Stole Feminism and now, that boiling down has taken place. With the changes to society that feminism has wrought (changes that have become embedded through political policy that has marginalised and demeaned men, especially men as fathers) we now see all the false faces of feminism fully exposed for what they are.
With the perspective of time, we can see how ‘Equity Feminism’ was a sweetener for the bitter medicine that was being poured down our throats (now men are being water-boarded by it, and we’re gagging). The snake oil really was snake oil in its most literal sense, a slithering viper that has wormed its way into the very innards of society, into every aspect of our lives, causing untold damage from the inside.
It is high time we made the word ‘Feminism’ a pejorative term. Something to be ashamed of. There is no ‘good’ feminism. The term no longer has any place on the lips of civilised people.