Feminism is a Discipline

OK, so I've been considering for the last couple of weeks what to start this blog back up with - there's been so much going on in my head for the last while that I'm finding it a challenge to unjumble it all to choose a topic to start with. Today it came to me. 

A few weeks ago I visited my mom and brother's family out of town. Its been quite some time since I've travelled up there, its a long way and with COVID and my work situation it hasn't been easy to get away. Anyway, normally we visit with some of their friends while I'm up there, so I asked, "What's going on with Mr and Mrs X?" (for reasons that will soon become clear, I will refrain from using their names). I got the scoop. 

The short version of the story was that Mrs X recently told Mr X that she wanted a divorce - (NO!) - and she declared to him that not only was she going to keep the house and the kids, he was going to pay her bills for her - (NO!!) - and I mean, not just give her money, ACTUALLY pay her bills so she didn't have to be burdened by this responsibility (...say WHAT...?). 

I wasn't aware of this, but she hasn't been able to work for quite a while as she has a physically debilitating disease, so she has been financially dependent on Mr X (as well as a small disability pension) for years. Anyway, apparently since declaring her demands, she has been broadcasting to her friends that she is such an empowered woman now. Strong. Yes, that's right - a feminist.  

So it was at this point in the chronicle that I nearly dropped my gin and tonic. Mouth agape, I stood up, fumed, paced around a while, and then launched into another of my signature lectures on "The Wrongness of All of This"(tm). Its been percolating in the back of my mind ever since, and I just feel like I need to get it down on paper here. 

I was shocked of course by the demise of what I thought was a pretty solid relationship, and about the heartbreak of a very decent guy that didn't deserve to be shit on like this by the mother of his children. But what really stuck in my craw was her identification with feminism. How the heck did she get that idea in her head?  How can a woman who intends to spend the rest of her days dependent on a man's finances have the gall to call herself empowered, just because she is divorced? That isn't even close to what feminism is!

I can only imagine that she must have been complaining to a girlfriend or a therapist that she didn't have the confidence to leave since she cant actually fend for herself, and her therapist/friend gave her the encouragement to follow through by telling her that she was strong, and presto, suddenly, the Feminist Club has a new member!

This the story certainly did bring up some important questions that need to be answered, and really they need to be answered by "feminism" - because they've certainly been asked before - by the many angry men who have been dumped by their wives who remain dependent on them afterwards and call themselves feminists - and the answers they've come up with are really terrible, and part of the reason so many people in the world today are so anti-feminist. THIS is exactly the sort of feminist that draws so much ire in MRA circles. 

This is actually something I've been wanting to discuss for several years in a different context, but never really had the clarity of mind on the subject. I've encountered this anti-feminist anger and denial so many times over the years, as I'm sure all feminists have, and usually all we have to say is "You don't understand what feminism is!" Its such a lame thing to say unless you actually have the answer to that ever-present question: 

What is feminism exactly? Who deserves the right to call themselves one? 

This is a question that's been pondered by millions of feminists over the generations, while receiving varying degrees of verbal assault for trying to propose a definition. Many complicated answers have been offered. Here is mine, and its a very simple one. 

Feminism is the the philosophical quest for the independence of women. 

I think of it like a practice, a discipline, similar to yoga or meditation, but for the betterment of women. Its the process of developing your skills as an independent thinker, an independent actor, an independent earner. It's the movement towards full agency as an individual. 

It doesn't really sound so problematic when you put it like that, does it? Why does it generate so much anger? Why do so many women who clearly are feminists deny being one? 

Well of course, one major part of the reason is that SO many women call themselves feminist without doing the work of self-improvement. They go to a yoga class, bought themselves some Lululemon tights, and presto, they think they're a Yogi. If you stop after the first step, you aren't a feminist, you're just a person who borrowed the power of feminism to justify your decisions because you lack the strength to continue the work. 

So yes, haters, I can hear you already, saying who does she think she is telling us what feminism is?? Well, I think I'm a feminist, that's who, and I'm saying that you have to earn that title. 

I'm only saying this because the term feminist has really taken a shit-kicking over the last decade, and with absolute certainty I say that the reason is because it has become like a flag you wave to identify yourself in this culture of identity politics - a t-shirt you wear when it suits you, rather than the training of becoming a better person, which is what the point of it all was! - and that really pisses me off. 

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not putting anyone down, or kicking anyone out of the club. But I am judging. If you aren't going to move towards real independence, then you've really just abandoned the discipline after you got the limited result you wanted, and you didn't really understand feminism at all. You have not earned the right to consider yourself a feminist. 

And I'm definitely not saying if you're unhappily married that you shouldn't divorce just because you're forced to be financially dependent afterwards. I'm just saying divorcing your husband doesn't make you a feminist - that's just the first class you went to. Keep practicing if you want to be in that esteemed league.  

Anyway... another reason I see this concept of feminism as being problematic is because men really have historically flourished in the world as the result of women being dependent - the "dependent female" identity is the partner to the traditionalist "heroic male" identity. If women don't need men, then what purpose do men serve? 

This is not an insult to men, not at all. I DEFINITELY do not believe that men aren't capable of success without it. But no one can deny that they have historically become accustomed to it, they have built their mythological identity upon it, and an unfortunate many of them have not yet figured out how to be "men" in their own right without relating to this masculine identity. 

I can definitely see why women's independence creates a problem for some of these men, but it is my genuine hope that men can find their way to be something beyond this stagnant identity. I believe in the "Independent Man" too, I don't think its necessary for him to hate feminism to become one, and I think that we can find our way to live in this world together and love each other without dependency or role playing. But it only works if we are willing to grow beyond the identity politics. 

 Maybe that's just a dream, but its a great dream. I dream we can all be better people if we cast the old traditions aside that keep us from growth. More on this another time. 

Trouble in Paradise

I was home this long weekend visiting my parents, and as always, my mom and I got into talking politics and religion (its your fault I'm like this mom!). For such a contentious topic, and considering the very dark places I've gone in my studies of both, I'm patently shocked that we agree on most issues, at least in the matter of the relationship between evangelical proselytizing and modern ethics.

I was even more surprised though to discover that Mom was already aware of the bizarre trends within the Christian churches in America to increase their membership - such as free beer and staged fights - an appeal to younger men, evidently, to make church more enticing. What she didn't know about was the involvement of the "manosphere," the growing group of men who have become so disillusioned with modern life that they are easy pickings for the proselytizing efforts of the post-millennial Evangelical movement.

The men of the manosphere feel useless and unworthy, and the church is capitalizing on their dissatisfaction, fostering it, and directing their rage at feminism, making them into weapons, effectively, because feminism is entirely responsible for the disbelief in the masculine superiority of the bible. Thus, they have found a common enemy.

Certainly, the blaming of feminism (and atheism of course)  is nothing new for the church, but that they are utilizing the present sense of dissatisfaction of men to boost their own strength is very new, and dangerously exploitative. This isn't something I ever wanted to say, and I don't mean it as an insult, a warning rather, but this particular group of men is extremely vulnerable to exploitation (think of the fascism of Fight Club, and its numerous references to the crisis of masculinity). Not only that, but they are overwhelmed by a repressed violence, which is being fostered by this religious group. To further compound the situation, evangelicals make up a statistically significant portion of the US government. The social and political consequences of this, if left unchecked, could be catastrophic to the equal rights movement.

Yes, I am saying this now: Post-millennial Evangelism is the modern world's fascism. Really, this shouldn't be shocking at all. Any religion that holds proselytizing as its most central tenet is inherently fascist, but presently, it is actively seeking to institute a moral theocracy in America, the intention of which is the 2nd coming of Christ, the manifestation of Revelations, and the End of Days - a "fascism of the people" - and all the world will lose if the campaign succeeds.

As I attempted to explain the gravity of the situation to my mother (no slouch herself in the matter of advocating for reasoned thought), I started frothing at the mouth a little, ranting like a crazy person, and she had to calm me down with a cup of tea. I'm sure she's grateful to know though that my interest in religious studies in college really was only academic, and that I had no plans to run off with a cult. Quite the contrary mom - it was a case of "know your enemy."

Finally, someone admits the truth

The truth about equal pay.

See, now, not the best way to start off the day, running across an article like this:

The reason for the opposition to EQUAL PAY

I'm trying to calmly and logically order my thoughts on this so I can write a proper analysis, but I'm getting worked up into a bra-burning frenzy right now, sitting at my workstation.

The argument for the gender divide

I read a super-fascinating article today, just by accident, while looking for some information about the practices and beliefs of Gnosticism. Specifically, I was wondering why choice and reason is so frowned upon by Evangelicals, and other fundamentalists and scriptural legalists, to the point of being considered heretical. And boy, did I find it! It stems from a fear of "gnosis"... knowledge. Egads! Not knowledge! That's the devil's work! You know things, and then you start thinking independently, and you know we can't have any of that sort of nonsense. Remember, there was this tree...?

Anyway...

Anglican view of the "Neo-Gnosticism" of Carl Jung

In it, I was quite surprised, is a fairly well written and convincing treatise making Carl Jung appear to be the singular source responsible for the brand of immorality known as hedonism that plagues modern Christianity, and also quite mad. Even Freud thought he was mad, apparently, and that's saying quite a lot. I had never really considered that Jung would be blamed for the destabilizing of western civilization! What a bad man, trying to reconcile the polarity of the genders. How relentlessly stupid of people to think there might be something to his theories of spiritual reconciliation.

Basically, the evangelical wing of the Anglican church is attempting to present Jung as a cult leader for advocating the very ancient notion of dualism and self-knowledge found in almost every spiritual practice in the world, since the history of man.... except for Christianity of course, which strictly condemns any sort of dualism as an indulgence of evil. 

The article in question, of course, calls for Anglicans to return to the good ol' days of strict adherence to authentically biblical masculinity and femininity, and traditional marriage roles. What a shocker (yawn). And lo, what a surprise, it coincides so nicely with the recent insurgence of Evangelicals and MRA adherents into the public forum, reminding us to stay inside those boxes, for our own good.

Anyway, while falling down the rabbit hole in pursuit of interconnections, as I am prone to do, I found links between Gnosticism and so many other fascinating things! - Free will, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Plato, the Age of Enlightenment, Libertarianism, Locke, Free Love (this is soooo interesting!), and the puritanical belief in America as the site of the New Jerusalem mentioned in the Book of Revelations.

This mess is going to take a while for me to sort out... It kind of brings me back to the rush I had in my liberal arts collegiate period though, a weird high of academia-fueled spiritual adrenaline/nausea combination.

"Ah, the heady days of space piracy."

Just theorizing about housework

I was reading Cinzia La Strega's article about housekeeping, always a topic of hot contention in gender-based commentary. Since it seems to be impossible for me to post comments on her site, I thought I'd take this topic up on my own. Cinzia's take on it is that women, even high-powered ones, still hold on to their household responsibilities is "because they don't really want to forfeit their "traditional feminine" roles." 

I've always had a different theory about working women who still do the lion’s share of the housekeeping work. There could be some aspect of adherence to tradition in their minds, but I chalk it up to a difference between the sexes – but not in the same "evo-psych" way that the MRA and fundamentalist crowds rationalize female subordination. Allow me to elucidate...

The Blog of Cinzia La Strega : Tears of a Clown

The tragicomedy that is the manosphere, as articulated by Cinzia La Strega



The Blog of Cinzia La Strega : Tears of a Clown: Reading between the lines of Roosh's post today ("Men Are Nothing More Than Clowns to the Modern Woman"), I'm guessing so...

"Manosphere" support group

As most of my friends are already too aware, I spend a good deal of time discussing the finer points of the men's rights movement with people who are, well, somewhat less than agreeable. Admittedly, it does make me a little bit nutso sometimes, but I think this issue is of such importance for the future of the world that I think my sanity is worth challenging for the love of reason!

At any rate, I have been searching for an online support community of sympathetic and intelligent folks of all gender-persuasions, and finally found one!

http://rooshnme.blogspot.ca/

Cinzia La Strega is also an exceptionally good writer, somehow simultaneously sympathetic, funny, critical, and intelligent. Even if her articles weren't so dear to my heart, I would still want to read her work.