While the right to vote seems reasonably appropriate as a platform for gender equality of yore... feminism now, vis a vis our privileged American society, pits women against each other, in service to the personal aggrandizement of modern feminists. For rather than recognize the realm of personal decisions as personal, modern feminists excise private (and often deeply complex) considerations from contextually personal domains to the domain of public scrutiny, in order to commend their own decisions, opinions, and proclivities... while marginalizing, disparaging, and shaming women who favor differing decisions, opinions, and proclivities.
Rather than feminism for all women, modern feminism propels an agenda that excludes women, as resoundingly as male misogyny. So: is the ugly truth of modern feminism, its rampant practice of equal opportunity misogyny?
Case in point, how is a feminist's refusal to validate a woman's right to a career sanctioned by a male misogynist (i.e. full time homemaker), no less problematic than a male misogynist's refusal to validate a woman's right to a career sanctioned by a feminist (i.e. CEO of a Fortune 500 company)? Aren't such exclusions by modern feminists, antithetical to the spirit of feminism, which values all women? Not to mention the irony of modern feminists who purport to "lean in"... while dismissing the incalculable contributions of women who eschew leaning into the corporate rat race in favor of leaning into their families.
While our privileged American society frowns on social media displays of male misogyny, isn't the constant criticism levied on women by modern feminists, for not leaning into suitably feminist herds, itself, a form of intolerant bigotry?
In the end, it's not surprising that modern feminism has devolved into misogynistic chauvinism. For women swayed by the allure of power and financially measurably success are no less invested in disempowering and devaluing invisible hordes, than anyone else... for achieving remarkable personal fortunes, at the expense of others, is an emphatic virtue, equally embraced by men and women.
More
I am a humanist first and foremost, as every social issue that touches a human being, is a human issue - not a male issue or a female issue or a black issue or a white issue or an American issue or an alien issue. Until we embrace humanism, our society will continue to sabotage any effort towards real social justice and real social reform.
Why?
Because - when labels come first - we abnegate understanding, empathy, and compassion towards others - in favor of interests that serve us. Meanwhile, self serving interests invariably backfire and handicap our ability to devise solutions to social dilemmas that serve everyone. Nevertheless, as a society that worships heroes, demonizes villains, and cocoons victims in swaths of oversensitivity, we will never achieve that state of enlightenment that acknowledges the hero, villain, and victim in all of us.
- M.
Addendum
Too often feminism promotes the masculinization of women's roles, careers, and achievements... insofar as we categorize roles, careers, and achievements as masculine and feminine. Nevertheless, the fact remains, that when it comes to conversations about women's roles, careers and achievements, we often remove these conversations from their appropriate contexts (which are often importantly meaningful)... in order to legitimize the propagation of decisions, opinions, and proclivities that align with feminist agendas.
Unfortunately, these agendas are often incompatible with the choices of women who meaningfully chose differing paths. While many women appreciate their options, in this modern era... the reality persists that many women chose not to lean in for a variety of complex reasons. Moreover, it is perplexingly confounding that feminists choose to marginalize, disparage, and shame these women for choices that are as right for them, as they are for those who choose to lean into the allure of power and financially measurably success.
Meanwhile, for every woman who bemoans disparity (i.e. the pay of actors vs actresses), what is missing from these water cooler conversations, is context. Not every example of disparity is unwarranted, nor is every victim of pay disparity a woman. Don't men who are paid less than their peers, deserve the same considerations, as women who are paid less than their peers? Likewise, don't we expect those who contribute less time and work towards a corporate bottom line (i.e. vis a vis movie revenue), to earn less, regardless of gender?
Nevertheless, if every person who resists the insistent thrum to join the corporate rat race, suddenly stopped following their hearts and "leaned in", full throttle... what a cold egoistic world this would be... for men and women.
- M.
Note
The phrase "lean in" is a reference to the form of feminism advocated by Sheryl Sandberg in her book Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead (2013).
Think I'm overstating the rampant misogyny of homemakers by modern feminists? Here's an example: Stay-At-Home Mom Facing Divorce? Don't Expect Alimony (Forbes 10/27/14), by Emma Johnson. Needless to say, this attitude towards full time homemakers encourages the unbridled disparagement of women who often struggle to enter or re-enter the corporate work force after their careers of leaning into their families -- a stark counterpoint to our insistence that women of today are free to choose any career.
Sadly, women are all too capable of rationalizing intolerant bigotry under the guise of modern feminism. For while the spirit of feminism encourages every woman to have a voice, modern feminists are all too eager to silence nonparticipants and dissenters of "lean in" feminism... regardless of gender.
- M.
