If you’ve ever spent half an hour reading anything about feminism, you’ve already discovered one of its biggest flaws: it’s completely incoherent. There’s sex positive feminism and sex negative feminism, radical feminism and intersectional feminism, trans-inclusive feminism and TERFs, first wave and third wave, third world and first world, etc, etc.
There’s a simple reason for this: women don’t have that many major issues that they universally share.
Groups of women have interests in common, just like any groups. Women in Alaska have certain interest in common that are different from women in Arizona. Women in their 80s have interests in common that they don’t share with women in their 30s (yet). Single women, women married to men, and women married to women all have distinct interests. Women who don’t want to get pregnant have an interest in abortion, women who do want to get pregnant aren’t so interested in abortion, and female fetuses in countries where sex-selective abortion is rampant have an inverse interest in abortion.
The one thing we all have in common is that we’d like women to be treated decently. We have this in common with most men, too, and most of us would also like men to be treated decently. Conservatives want to treat women decently. Liberals want to treat women decently. Pretty much everyone who isn’t a sociopath thinks other people should be treated decently. This is not a philosophy, much less an overriding political position.
It makes as much sense to think that all women could have political interests in common as to think that all of the French could, and then be surprised to find that France has more than one political party fighting over what is in the best interests of the French.
Since “the interests of all women” can’t be a political position, we’re left instead with people using the motte and bailey trick to claim that their particular self-serving position is really in the interests of all women–rather like if all of the political parties in France decided to call themselves the French Party. (Note: all political positions are self-serving, of course.) Then if you don’t agree that some particular self-serving point in your interest, you get hit with the “What, you don’t support the interests of all women?”
Since no one on the left wants to admit to not supporting the universal interests of all women, we get instead a plethora of feminisms, each purporting to be the One True Feminism, and absolutely nothing coherent.
evolutionistx 
[…] Source: Evolutionist X […]
LikeLike
You all want women to have legal independence from father/husband ie the right to whore around.
Meaning first wave feminism, the right to choose own husband.
LikeLike
You don’t notice the base origin of feminism old catholic church rules that marriage must be for love ie with female consent.
That is feminism, female picking own husband instead of parents and society which is the norm for the human species.
Thank God Christianity is being destroyed by Islam lol.
LikeLike
If my daughters are bound to obey me, they are pearls of great value; I can marry them off in exchange for obedient wives for my sons. If they’re free to run off to the city and become whores, they’re useless eaters from the day they’re born, a day they won’t likely live to see. Which explains why villages in China, India, et al. have many little boys and few if any little girls.
Traditional Christianity can afford women a bit of freedom because of its strict rules against sluttery and infanticide. Christian girls usually married well because all the unrelated men they ever met were pre-selected by their parents to be good marriage material.
LikeLike
There are many strains of feminism and all are wrong. Life is a rough game wherein female players get destroyed like a woman’s national soccer team vs. 14-year-old boys.
You need to attach yourself to one man and let him play the game for you. Ideally a man you met through your father, because dating is a rough game too.
LikeLike
“Attach yourself to one man and let him play the game for you” can also be interpreted as a strain of feminism. Anything can be interpreted as a strain of feminism so long as it somehow benefits a woman. Hence its total incoherence.
LikeLike
The correct term for it is “patriarchy”.
In the 1870s there was a “feminist” movement pushing the idea that, with a few specific exceptions, all jobs should be reserved for men, and the best jobs for married men, on the theory that if women competed with men for jobs, it would drive down wages and deny other women the chance to be stay-at-home mothers.
That was certainly more beneficial to women who wanted to be mothers, the only women who matter in the long run.
LikeLike
Then just move on to Shakti Worship.
LikeLike
You are a horrible person. Feminism is women’s liberation from men, but of course men don’t like that since they would get less sex.
LikeLike
@ Arya RE: consent, licit vs. valid marriage, etc., stolen from commenter “Aurelius Moner” (at HDB chick website I think):
“The Church’s teaching on consent and marriage was a matter of sacramental theology, regarding the concept of validity. It did not preclude the moral requirements for parental approval of the marriage, it just meant that, if two people contracted a marriage without parental consent it was, lamentably, valid. The Church did not encourage or permit marriage on such grounds, it simply admitted that they had to be recognized as valid, even though for a licit and morally upright performance of the rite, more would be required.
This clarification did lead to abuses, but the response of the Church was to legislate that, for the administration of the Sacrament, the stipulated witness(es) (in ordinary circumstances, including a priest), would be required. Because jurisdiction is required for Sacramental validity in some instances (Confession, Marriage), legislating the obligatory presence of a priest with ordinary jurisdiction was a way to ensure that clandestine marriages could no longer claim automatic validity. And, of course, the priest was bound to ensure that the marriage bans were published in advance, witnesses and others were given opportunity to object to the marriage, etc. All of which is just to say, one should not overestimate the impact of this clarification of sacramental theology on marriage. The involvement of the community and parents remained critically important. The idea of consent does not at all preclude the possibility of young women consenting to a marriage simply out of obedience to their fathers. Unlike the claim of those who decry “rape culture,” there is ample room for “consent,” short of enthusiastic approval.”
LikeLike
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/whatever-happened-to-european-tribes/
LikeLike