Two of the interesting things I have learned about the history of feminism (in the West) over the last few years is that -

1. The leader of "the second wave" - Gloria Steinhem - was an agent and of the CIA and working under their instruction and

2. This "wave" was significantly funded and supported by high-level members of the US business community.

Why?

To break up the Family Unit and to "get the kids away from their mothers much sooner". (I guess this makes them easier to influence by external forces.)

Another reason was to easily provide a vast supply of resident workers, who could be paid slightly lower wages for the same types of work as their husbands. Any resulting industrial actions for equality could be drawn out over many years.

I remember a time when most families could be supported by a single breadwinner and the option of a working wife was available for "luxuries" or specific purposes.

Nowadays, after winning so many concessions(?), the idea of women working is virtually mandatory just to meet the financial demands of having a family at all.

Except for equal pay, did many of the problems espoused by feminism really exist at all?

Sure, there may since have been some idealogical gains made for women, but at what cost to society generally?

As I think about this article and the arguments around it I'm reminded of a scene from Life of Brian.

I'll get the wording wrong but the message should be close

The conspirators are sitting around bemoaning how bad the Romans are.
Someone says "What have they ever done for us?"
The others repeat with a "Yeah what have they ever done for us?"
Someone pipes up and mentions the roads.
Well apart from the roads what have they ever done for us?
Well there is sewege and running water.
- this goes on for a while as they list off a wide rage of benefits the Romans had brought.
Well apart from road's, sewage, ..., running water what have the romans ever done for us?

Feminism has got some stuff wrong, it's not spoken out on everthing it should have spoken out about. It's stood all to silent when it's been misused on some issues. It's not a single defined dogma, it's an approach to human worth and freedom that will be interpreted differently by each individual. It's brought opportunity and freedom to large numbers of people who otherwise would not have had that freedom.

As a single dad I can bemoan the role of feminism in supporting some of the biases in our family law system whilst celebrating the freedoms it has contributed to for me to explore my role as a father.

Democracy has it's failings, some might be able to demonstrate that people would make fewer bad choices if they had less opportunity to make choices. That does not make democracy less desirable than a dictatorship, it just means that with the benefits come costs.

R0bert

The whole Evil Feminist World Conspiracy thing is so tired. Like TRTL, frankly my dears, I couldn't give a damn. There's good people, there's bad people...and that's it: Life. Or as close as most people get.
Romany, Thursday, 31 January 2008 9:51:45 PM

Does that mean you are surrendering? or making a tactical withdrawal?

The plain fact is that feminist philosophy, theory, dogma, idealism etc has had an enormous impact on all levels of governmental policy over the last 4 decades.

Without a doubt there are good and bad people, sometimes bad people are attracted to a particular special interest group.

Banality has found its home. Now apprently Baker needs to find a homemaker.

The women's liberation movement was born in a time of great social ferment when all the traditional ruling class ideas were under challenge and the ruling class propaganda of racism, sexism and homophobia was being pushed back. In some instances (such as Paris in May 68 or Czechoslovakia in the same year) capitalism itself was being threatened.

Sexist, racist and homophobic propaganda and ideology perform a valuable role for capital. They divide the working class and thus help maintain the rule of capital. So at every opportunity the apologists for the dictatorship of capital look to wind back the gains of the past.

We must continue the struggle for sexual and human liberation. Ultimately this is the struggle against the rule of profit and for the rule of people.

Passy

Yes!! At last someone here is standing back and looking at where feminism sits within the big political canvas. I was beginning to despair.

Big 'C' Capital certainly plays its part, but I believe your comments re feminism, racism and homophobia apply equally to dominator systems in general - be they left-wing, right-wing, fascist, feudal, theocratic, imperial or whatever.

'In-groups' maintain their power by homogenous group-think, which in turn requires the ongoing exclusion of all 'out-groups' from the mainstream.

Of course, this is all gobbledygook to those whose belief systems depend on women knowing their place as inferior to men, non-majority races keeping to the periphy of society and homosexuals staying ensconced within the realm of life's shadows.

Johnny Rotten
“Do you know what feminism is? I'll answer my own question:”

I’m not sure if you have asked me a question, or you have asked me a question, and then answered your own question, before I could answer your question.

Next you will be telling me that feminists believe in equality.

What I think, is that you are someone who is attracted to an “ism” called feminism, and you have said that a certain male is a “tosser” and writes “thoughtless twaddle”,.

That is what I think, but next you will be telling me that feminists don’t believe in abuse.

Turnrightthenleft.
How is your search progressing?

Recently, loving feminists on OLO have called various males “slime and snails”, “meatheads”, “loafers” and now “tossers”.

Next you will be telling me that feminists don’t believe in abuse.

SJF
If someone objects to feminists calling males “slime and snails”, “meatheads”, “loafers” and now “tossers”, then would they be in the in-group or the out-group.