Feminism as Entitlement - Pt. 3.1
Conceptualizing Your Personal Choices & Opportunities as a Political Battleground Engenders a Sense of Entitlement
Previous Entries:
Feminism as Entitlement - Pt. 1
Feminism as Entitlement - Pt. 2
We live in a fairly free country. People share a large number of civic rights. Spurious discrimination on the basis of sex or race or other immutable characteristic is rare and is almost certainly far exceeded by ‘positive discrimination’ to change group metrics or advance certain identity categories. Women are able to get basically any job they’re qualified for and often enjoy special dispensations, programs, funding, or promotion opportunities. Surely, then, feminism can pat itself on the back and pivot to focus on the struggles of women in the developed world (many of whom do live in patriarchies)… or can divert some of its frantic energy to improve childhood literacy or mental health?
If feminism as it exists today were a movement for civil and financial equality this might be the case. It is not. Feminism is (as I’ve already written) something of a weasel word. It does NOT mean a support for sexual equality, because if it did >90% of American citizens would consider themselves feminists. The actual number is more like 30-40%. A ‘feminist’ can be characterized (as the brilliant
has written) as a person with a particular concern for social unfairness toward women. This trims away almost all the nonbelievers and retains the core of the ideology. It’s still flexible and clear enough to be a solid operative description. It’s a good definition.:
What would a non-argumentative definition of feminism look like? Ideally, feminists, non-feminists, and anti-feminists could all endorse it. If that’s asking too much, all these groups should at least be able to accept the proposed definition as a rough approximation of the position they affirm or deny. My preferred candidate:
feminism: the view that society generally treats men more fairly than women
I want to go farther, though, and expand the concept of ‘feminist’. I’m on shaky ground here and this effort is totally subjective and speculative but, nevertheless:
A feminist is a person who conceptualizes women’s career opportunities, dating and romantic choices, legal rights and obligations, and social expectations using a political conception which focuses on victimization at the hands of individual men and/or society as a whole, and which is systematically concerned with expanding women’s freedom of action and opportunities and privileges in these areas by using concepts like equality, liberty, virtue, fairness, and worth flexibly (and in some cases cynically).
Feminists in their modern incarnation are not best described by their commitment to principle or program, for these imperatives would demand that they sometimes yield some of their own (collective) freedoms and privileges and this is unacceptable.
Feminism is no longer a political movement or even an ideology. Rather, it’s a cultural stance. The people who defend young female murder defendants (Crystal Mangum, Cyntoia Brown) on legally shaky bases of self-defense are feminists. They are not interested in applying laws fairly. They are interested in seeing young women found ‘not guilty’ and it is nearly impossible to find a case so flagrant that there will not be feminists rallying to a woman’s defense. So it is with rape allegations (or even allegations of consensual but regrettable sexual activity). We have subscribed to a cultural notion of powerful women, with equal agency… but this tends to fade into the background when ‘men in positions of power’ are accused of crimes or indiscretions. Like the example of murder defendants, feminists (not all, but some) will rush to condemn men for allegations of rape all the way down to uncomfortable dates. Even drawing a distinction among different varieties of sexual misbehavior has been widely attacked. One could point out that the fact that women often receive extra support and consideration for their claims (and often cry or display social signals for sympathy) is inconsistent with the idea that our society is patriarchal. They could even legitimately wonder why feminists do not criticize these (sometimes cynical) displays of vulnerability. After all, nothing erodes the idea of women as strong or as capable to certain viewers as the sight of adult women weeping about consensual sex that they engaged in to secure movie roles. This misses the point, however. Modern feminism wants women to be perceived as strong and powerful when it is advantageous. When it is advantageous to to perceived as weak and vulnerable then that is the goal. Feminism wants men to pay for dates and support wives and provide alimony when men are the wealthier halves of the partnership. When women are the wealthier halves feminists do no push for the same concessions for their disadvantaged male partners. The idea of a ‘disadvantaged male partner’ or a ‘victimized man’ (by a woman) or a man who has suffered employment discrimination in favor of a woman/women are literally inconceivable within the worldview of modern feminism. Women might not always be victims (they usually are not and are often victorious and admirable… and always strong) but they are never victimizers and they should always have the advantage over men. Even when this isn’t justified by the facts of the specific situation, the thinking goes, it’s justified by decades and countless collective instances of injustice. The balance sheet still owes women, they seem to believe… who cares about one male manager or candidate or husband?
Feminism began as a political movement and then grafted itself onto a certain species of cultural radicalism and began to attack the sexual norms and distinctions of our society. The goal was always more votes, more rights, more freedom, more financial independence for women… but those days have passed.
Now any policy change might disadvantage certain women and many policy changes will disadvantage most women. Forbidding positive discrimination, for example, or mandating sexual parity in fields (a manifestly terrible idea) would devastate women’s opportunities at many levels and would cause millions of lost jobs for female teachers and therapists and counselors (as well as cause a catastrophic drop in the supply of carpenters and plumbers). Women’s accusations are taken seriously and women have sexual license to choose their own paths and present whichever face to society they desire. No hard oppression or legal consequences will be forthcoming. What is feminism now then? Feminism is the sense of group entitlement and victimization as a default stance. It is the belief that women are still oppressed, therefore any opportunity for a woman or women to advance or profit or escape sentencing or gain custody of children is optimal. It is the idea that society owes women, forever. Feminism is no longer an ideology in the strictest sense. It is, quite literally, the solidification of sexual entitlement into a cultural narrative… one which has found millions of enthusiastic acolytes.
Unfortunately for those believers, conceptualizing oneself as a victim is rarely psychologically healthy or ultimately useful. The bid to gain privilege and advantage in every area on this basis can win a great deal of money and power for women, but it will never make them a unified political constituency and it will probably not make them happy. It will also not make feminism popular. I predict the ambivalent poll numbers, of Western women who identify with the label ‘feminist’, will continue to slowly fall.
There is no patriarchy and there never has been one ever. It is a lie.
There is no country in the world where women are treated poorly where regular men aren't also treated worse. But these men (and boys) have always been invisible and disposable.
Again, well argued