Questioning Feminism — The Myth of the Oppressive Patriarchy
Kitten Holiday
6434

Excellent deconstruction of the founding principles of feminism. I question any global statements about gender that are based on societal influence, like those preached by Steinam. Global perspectives about environmental factors are easily skewed to support a predetermined narrative. They are vastly different from global statements about genetics such as “men are physically stronger than women.”

Months ago, I posted that feminism attacks its own constituents by castigating women who choose family over career. I postulated that women, generally, are hard wired, either from G-d or evolution, to have a strong maternal instinct that far outweighs the paternal instinct. There are certainly exceptions, much as there are exceptions to the general rule that men are physically stronger than women. But as a general rule, women are more naturally predisposed toward the incomparably satisfying reward of child rearing than men.

A movement that dictates that women abdicate their genetic predisposition in favor of meeting a societal expectation that they succeed in a formal work environment, puts many women in the terrible position of choosing between the misery of society blacklisting them and the misery of sacrificing the noble, beautiful and vital undertaking that they naturally crave. What type of movement tells its constituents that they are failures if they contribute to society by admirably performing the most difficult job in the world that they long to perform? This seems no less backwardly “pro-woman", than a movement that aims toward meeting their sexual needs by compelling them to become sex-slaves. It is a position that does not care about the persons that they purport to represent, but rather, it caters to the selfish objectives of its proponents who cloak themselves in virtue.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Joshua Sanders’s story.