Neal Cormier’s Weblog

The problem with feminism, is feminism.

As far as I’ve understood, ‘feminism,’ in its original sense, is the pursuit of women to be that of equals to men and has had its biggest victories beginning in the nine-teenth century, reaching the apex of its first wave in 1920 when women got the right to vote.

The second wave, I would say, began during World War II, when women had to take over the jobs of men, and began to smoke and behave like their husbands.

The third wave of the last century I’d say was during the 1960’s when feminists would burn their bras in protesting the sexual hegemony with flower girls, ending with the 1980’s version of the career woman. Then there was a fourth wave in the 1990’s concentrating on a reaction to all the previous movements.

From what I’ve read, we are currently undergoing post-feminism.

My mom was a feminist. And she was a very respectable intelligent woman.

But when I think of feminists in general, I get the same feeling about men and being ‘masculine’ at a bar full of frat-boys: by declaring us as not just males or men, but ‘MEN,’ it sort of says something a little different to ourselves.

That is why I can’t respect feminism: it is the slave and captive who mistook her cage to be its key.

The biggest disservice a person can do to themselves is to think of themselves as a gender, a race, an ethnicity, nationality, sexual preference, etc., and not WHO they are.

By assigning oneself to being a ‘feminist,’ one devalues their identity in ascribing themselves to a group, on the basis of biology no less, rather than self-will and intelligence.

This is why the biggest problem of feminism, is itself, including feminism striving for equality–its own contradiction in terms.

Modern feminism, as opposed to its original definition runs along the lines of special rights more than it does equal rights, radicalism over moderation. And as I’ve pointed out, the mere idea of thinking of yourself as a woman, before being an individual, is the root of the very slavery feminists are alleged to oppose.

Feminism, for instance, in general today, would ascribe certain rules of behavior to women in regards to men.

I’ve heard feminists declare a host of things that doesn’t necessarily differ too much from the boiler plate conventional drivel they often so vehemently cry about.

Now, I understand the fact that there are more than one types of feminism, sex-positive, sex-negative feminists, feminist theory, and certain unique characteristics to each wave, and so forth, but those are not what necessarily concerns me here. It is the general idea I am interested in talking about.

My own idea of it comes from what I’ve read, things self-described feminists have told me, in concert to personally witnessed behavior in how everyday women seem to regard the concept.

Coincidentally, however, this usually does appear as either sex-negative or sex-positive feminism. I attribute this to the fact that I am a man and my observation is nearly always biased toward sex or its possibility with the person to whom I witnessing or speaking, the very admission of which, would, no doubt garner much of their antipathy.

But, observe, in all cases, that the emphasis of being feministic concentrates on rules of behavior rather than the empowerment of individual decision making. Here are a few I have seen manifest either outrightly or implicitly in behavior.

-no sleeping with a guy on the first date
-no letting him open doors for you
-no letting him pay
-no wearing make up
-act proactive and aggressively
-take the initiative

or

-sleeping with him is good on the first date (to empower yourself)
-no wearing make up
-you make the first move
-(implicitly) discussion needs to be centered around being female
-act proactive and aggressively
-take the initiative

Despite all this, and due to the fact that we predominantly live in a post-feminist age, women on average, still buy and wear make-up, lingerie, are obsessed with their bodies, and are destroyed egoistically very early on.

As an important tangent, a common confusion is to think of ‘egoism,’ to be ‘egotism,’ when they are not the same thing.

As my on-board mac dictionary points out:

“The words egoism and egotism are frequently confused, as though interchangeable, but there are distinctions worth noting. Both words derive from Latin : ego (‘I’), the first-person singular pronoun. Egotism, the more commonly used term, denotes an excessive sense of self-importance, too-frequent use of the word ‘I,’ and general arrogance and boastfulness. Egoism, a more subtle term, is perhaps best left to ethicists, for whom it denotes a view or theory of moral behavior in which self-interest is the root of moral conduct. An egoist, then, might devote considerable attention to introspection, but could be modest about it, whereas an egotist would have an exaggerated sense of the importance of his or her self-analysis, and would have to tell everyone.”

Egoistically then, women aren’t doing so well, and the long history of feminism hasn’t really seemed to do all that much on a personal, mainstream level. This augments and facilitates the feminist movement’s fervor toward extremism, which then, in turn, further alienates the feminist movement, which ends women up where they began: nowhere.

But let me illustrate what I mean by being an individual in giving you an example of a true individual’s reaction to, say, someone hitting on them at a bar, versus a reaction where someone thinks of themselves and behaves as a ‘woman.’

A girl is sitting at a bar, and a guy approaches her. She is very attracted to him, and this means, immediately that she must appear unobtainable in order to attract him further. He, of course, encroaches on his kill, asking her if she’d like a drink. She responds with compliance, merely compliance, nothing more. He buys her a drink. She receives it from the bartender as he strikes up conversation. “What’s your name?” “Lizzie,” “Where ya from,” “New York,” etc.

As they get to talking, the conversation slips immediately into jokes and lines, which she laps up while maintaining a casual indifference that makes him go crazy for her. They end up playing pool and eventually, she gets more and more tipsy, and hence, he gets closer and closer to his goal: sleeping with her. At the last moment she ‘comes to her senses’ remembering the floating recitation of an amalgam of people who taught her that sleeping with a guy on the first date is bad, who knows why, but nonetheless, how could she respect herself if she did? So, she goes over to her friends who have been waiting in the wings, leaving her number in his hand.

So, now let’s say a different girl is sitting at a bar. A guy approaches her. She is very attracted to him, and thus keeps an open demeanor, for casual and direct conversation. The usual small talk is gotten out of the way quickly and they begin talking about each other’s work and that leads to interests they might have in common. She doesn’t hide her excitement for him, despite all the other girls, and nearly everyone she knows who’d tell her to hide her feelings for fear of driving him away. She thinks in with cool casual confidence: “Well, if he likes the things I say, then he likes me, period, and if he is drivin away by me being myself, then that’s his problem…”

They have a blast, the guy enjoys the refreshing interaction of the confidence and intelligence he senses with his guy friends. Nothing is held back, they kiss and grope each other playfully as the night goes on without a care in the world. Ideas are shared, experiences are recanted and retained, they play pool and keep drinking. Sleeping together was never the primary goal, and so, that is what they are able to enjoy. She didn’t come with any friends and she was tipsy, too much to drive, they both knew they wanted to sleep together, so they did, and had everything in the world left to talk about in the morning.

See what I mean?

All these social rules, taboos, and equivocations, have something in common with feminism: they are robotic, and unreasoned. Confidence enables a person to be a person, and not need the comfort of a group to have to ‘wait in the wings.’

You may think that the first example is the embodiment, not of a feminist, but of a typical girl in mainstream society. It is, in fact, its an example of post-feminist age if anything, but remember that that is where feminism has lead us, and is in my opinion the overall affect the movement has had, which in mainstream society, is minimal in terms of actual self-liberation. This is because the under-pinnings are the same in either case, and as I have found, most often, their behavior too.

Confidence and ego, having things one is proud of, enables one to have genuine interests, making them interesting to other people.

Developed personal interests, physical health and genetically derived attractiveness, a good sense of humor, rational self-interest, experience, knowledge–these are values.

Wearing make up or not, a bra, or not, sleeping with a guy or not, opening doors for you, or not, whether you make the first move, or he or she does, whether you need to prefer women and be a lesbian, or-not…

These are not values, but alternatives, alternatives set up in terms of the alleged enemy–by men.

Feminists, by being feminist, think in terms of reactive alternatives rather than active values. Reactive vs. proactive behavior is also something psychologists identify to be the earmark of low self-esteem, which is probably reinforced by feminist ideology in an endless loop.

The idea of feminism whether it views itself as a pursuit of equality or superiority to men, is itself its own worst enemy, and bad for humans in both cases.

Let us crush and forget this idea, the idea of feminism entirely, in favor of a very new one: a confident person who happens to be woman, or happens to be a man.