Feminism and racism

Human Stupidity (he sends me a lot of stuff) sent me this article, by Angry Harry, on the evils of feminism. Harry writes:

Over and over again, we see them studiously refusing to make any connection between feminism and some very serious ills.

For example, as mentioned in my pieces entitled Feminism causes traffic congestion and global warming and Feminists Destroy the Planet, neither academics nor politicians will point out the undeniable links between the increasing tendency of people to live alone – and the increasing numbers of women going out to work – and the increases in traffic congestion, pollution, energy consumption etc etc.

These connections are blindingly obvious.

But they won’t even mention them.

The persistently severe problems being caused in the UK’s National Health Service because some 50% of women doctors abandon the profession within about 10 years is, occasionally, mentioned in the press, but feminism is never openly connected with this issue (e.g. see Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?)

I thought about my (ex) blogger friend Latte Island, who describes herself as a feminist. I thought about most of the people I know, including myself, who would definitely be considered “feminists” had we lived a hundred years ago. I thought about the pre-Christian traditions of Scandinavia and how they could be considered “feminist” as well. A lot of people, pro-whites among them, secretly admire Islamic society for its anti-feminism. Despite its serious flaws, Islam rejects feminism entirely.

When I read an article like Angry Harry’s, I can’t help but compare the term “feminism” to the term “racism”. The meanings of both terms have expanded well beyond their initial definitions. “Racist” used to mean somebody who would lynch another person merely because of his race. Somebody who would hurl rocks, and hurtful epithets, at random members of other races as he drove by. Now a “racist” is anybody who criticizes non-white groups for anything. Statements such as “I don’t find kinky hair to be attractive” will brand you as a racist. Insisting on strict merit for hiring or college admission will bring howls of “racism.” Demanding equal rights for whites also counts as “racism” these days.

“Feminism” has also become a catch-all phrase. A feminist in Saudi Arabia is somebody who wants women to be allowed to drive. A feminist in Pakistan might be somebody who objects to the legal beating of wives. Angry Harry would probably be considered a “feminist” in those places. Like racism, feminism is a continuum. As such, it’s not accurate to blame society’s ills on “feminism” when, in fact, many of its traits are simply accessories of being civilized. By many accounts, it was acceptable for Victorian husbands to beat their wives. I’m fairly certain that most of us would not want to go back to those times.

Today we have quotas, set-asides and blatant anti-male policies. We should oppose such policies – but common sense would dictate that if a woman is willing and qualified for a particular profession, we should let her in.  Regarding the statistics Angry Harry cites about women doctors in the U.K.  I wonder how many of those women doctors were pressured to attend medical school in order to fill a quota. How many of them lacked basic information about their own reproductive options when they made that decision? People are young when they choose a career. They need the guidance of elders in order to make the right decisions. Instead of the advice of wise sages, today’s young women are advised by dogma-driven diversicrats. It’s no wonder so many of them discover, later on, that they made the wrong decision.

I think it is important to have female doctors. It goes without saying that they have an advantage in understanding women’s problems. We know that many women prefer women doctors. Therefore, if a well-informed and capable woman chooses to be a doctor, she should be encouraged to do so. If this makes me a feminist then so be it.

I’ll conclude by asking that we divorce specific policies and attitudes from catch-all words like “racism” or “feminism”. If I find kinky hair to be unattractive, there is nothing wrong with this. Therefore, it wouldn’t be fair to call me a “racist”. But I would be, and this is why the term “racist” no longer has any meaning; it’s too inclusive and emotionally charged.  If I believe women should be allowed into the professions, this doesn’t mean I have anything against men. Like “racist”, “feminist” has become too broad and emotionally charged to be useful. Perhaps we should stop using it entirely.

Advertisements

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in feminism and men's issues. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Feminism and racism

  1. WMarkW says:

    >”I wonder how many of those women doctors were pressured to attend medical school in order to fill a quota. How many of them lacked basic information about their own reproductive options when they made that decision?”

    If this was true of many women doctors, the English health care system has more severe problems than feminism.

  2. Red says:

    Feminism in general means raising the general status of women. Harry’s argument isn’t well laid out, but even progressive admit that feminism results in lower birth and they’re pushing it places like India for that very reason. Through out history nations who gave their women high status for simply being female have repeatably seen their population growth stagnate and then fall. Good examples of this: Sparta, Babylon, Western roman empire(Eastern empire kept female status low), Baghdad caliphate, Modern secular Jews in Israel, ect.

    In fact one of the primary reasons that hardline religions keep their population growth high is their insistence of keeping women in a low default status and giving them power and status primarily though the birth and raising of children.

    Harry is quite correct about that feminists/progresses are hiding the fact that female child bearing drops like a rock after the teens. The thing that’s not clear is why they are hiding it. The net result of is a culling of the most intelligent mothers from gene while the dumbest who do nothing but follow their baser instincts quickly become the dominate source of children in future generations. This will lead to a overall decline in IQ . Wither this is their intention or mearley a bad byproduct is unclear.

  3. latte island says:

    The connection between feminism and low birth rate isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If I were designing an ideal society, I’d emphasize quality, not quantity. Look at the high birth rates all over the third world. Is that helping their societies at all? No, they export people, because there is no food or opportunity for all of those extra children.

    The main reason pro-white people are concerned with keeping the birth rate high, is to compete with immigrants who have a lot of children. My solution: end immigration. Take care of your own people. Don’t export jobs. That way, a society will thrive, regardless of slight fluctuations in population.

    It seems to me that a lot of white middle class people can’t have all the children they want, because the cost of having children is so high, due to immigration and high taxes. Remove those things, and there will immediately be a white baby boom, because even feminists and metrosexual guys want children. It’s just how people are.

    All the stress about this issue comes from a lack of imagination, plus bad faith in some cases, in other words, some people would rather blame feminism for the decline in birth rates, because they hate feminism, whatever they think that is, than solve the problem by removing some of the financial barriers to white middle and working class people having more children.

    • red says:

      “The connection between feminism and low birth rate isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If I were designing an ideal society, I’d emphasize quality, not quantity. Look at the high birth rates all over the third world. Is that helping their societies at all? No, they export people, because there is no food or opportunity for all of those extra children.”

      Europe ran with a very stable and useful eugenics program for many years: A women couldn’t be wedded to a man who couldn’t buy his own house and bastards and sluts were treated like shit. This resulted in men working very hard to earn enough to marry a decent woman and generally only the more successful bred in large numbers. A lot of lesser men died trying to earn enough money for a family and a lot of women died as old maids. But it produced the best and brightest generations in history. Of course such things only work if you have monogamy and patriarchal ownership of women.

      BTW, I don’t hate feminism. I love it. It’s killing my enemies generation by generation. Our current ruling class will die out sometime in the 2060s by their current reproduction rates.

    • Georgia Resident says:

      Even in the absence of immigration, our current welfare state would favor reproduction by people with low future time orientation and high sex drives (ie, low-class NAMs). We can either end welfare, and let the children of such people starve to death, as they would have in other ages and places, or make contraceptive and/or sterilization measures a condition of receiving welfare for any significant amount of time.

      • LBD says:

        Latte, I also live in Alameda. I miss your blog terribly. Is there any way to get in touch?

      • latte island says:

        LBD, I’ll put my blog template back online, and if you like, you can leave a comment with your contact info, and I’ll get in touch. I’ll set it to comment moderation, so no one will see your comment but me. Give me a few days to copy and erase everything…

        Georgia Resident, I agree. But the average welfare recipient is physically fit and can do agricultural work, which farmers claim they need foreigners for. How about asking Tyrone and LaTrina to pick some fruit? Financial responsibility is an effective form of birth control. I’d throw in a free car for any low-IQ type who is willing to be sterilized.

        LOL, talk about eugenics and you’d have all the social conservatives up in arms. That’s why I’m so fed up with the “pro-white” community. They’re not pro-white, they’re anti-female and anti-gay. Quite a lot of social conservatives get upset about all the poor little black children who were lost to abortion. Never mind what they do once they grow up, any fetus is more important than the taxpayer. And how about the hysteria about free birth control? Granted, no church should be forced to subsidize it for their workers, but has it even occurred to anyone what a great investment free birth control would be? Anyone who can’t pay for their own birth control is going to cost the taxpayers a lot more in social services. But no one cares about that, they’re rather bash women. I guess men have nothing to do with reproduction.

  4. Anonymous2 says:

    “We should oppose such policies – but common sense would dictate that if a woman is willing and qualified for a particular profession, we should let her in.”

    NO!

    NO!

    I’m sorry. You have to take a deep breath and swallow the hard lesson of experience here. Decent men put out an honest effort to allow women of good merit to find their way into worthy positions, but this always leads to feminist pressure and a capitulation to their agenda. Every, single, time!

    You have to say no. No, women should not get to do whatever they want to, sometimes just because they are women. If they are allowed into masculine roles they will either directly or indirectly devalue and demoralize them in the long run. The good ones are used as tools.

    Don’t ever let those snakes exploit you. Go as far as to advocate white supremacy when “equal opportunity” is always interpreted to mean forcing equality between those who are not equal. And, demand reparations when leftists break their promises!

  5. Women physicians are in the majority, because they get better grades and more access to med school.

    They actually do qualify to enter the schools. But they are a bad investment for society because they will not work like a man would work.

    It is a long known fact that men work longer years and longer hours. Women tend to drop out of the work force, or stop for years, and choose significantly shorter work hours.

    Women also tend to choose the more comfy jobs.

    This is also why we have the wage gap. Not because of discrimination but because of women’s work choices.
    =====================================

    Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?

    (Same issue is relevant in Australia where rural veterinarians are scarce. Women get most University spaces for veterinary medicine, because they have better grades. Once graduated, women mostly don’t have the physical strength to give birth to calves or sheep, don’t want to work in rural areas, want to take care of pet dogs and cats in cities with normal office hours, don’t want to work overtime, and retire early.

    Similarly, rural physicians are scarce in Germany, partly because of large number of female graduates that don’t accept to work in rural areas 2).

    Note that no modern MRA would dare to attack egalitarianism like this. As Angry Harry‘s article shows, feminist egalitarianism is expensive for society.
    Women’s equality comes at a high cost to society. To be on equal footing with men, women would need quotas even in cooking, chess, snooker and tennis.

  6. Black Death says:

    I enjoyed Angry Harry’s article. I never realized that so many women physicians dropped out in the UK. I think the percentage is lower in the US, but I don’t have exact numbers.

    We hear a lot of talk nowadays about the debt burden for young American physicians – the average US medical graduate gets a bill for around $155,000 along with the diploma. That’s a lot of money, but it does have the effect of compelling doctors to keep their noses to the grindstone. Medical school classes in the US are now around half female, but 44% of female physicians work part time, as compared to 22% of male physicians, and female part timers are often in their most productive years (35-44), while male part timers are usually tapering off as they approach retirement. Further, female doctors overwhelmingly concentrate in primary care and OB/GYN.

    • worx92 says:

      Good points. No one wants to say it, but women doctors find when they have kids, they can pay someone else to raise them, or they can cut their hours back, or stop working. The idea that one can “have it all” is a myth. You’re a full time mom or a part time mom and your career isn’t going to let you take a backseat unless you make priorities.

      Having kids is the whole thing with being a woman. We are animals, and animals have the purpose of reproduction. Now, so many just don’t like that, they want higher purposes, etc., but when you reproduce yourself, you set forth your good genes, and you can raise your children to use their talents and strengths.

      The idea that the office or a title is mightier than reproduction isn’t really honored by nature. Nature says you waited too long, or you exposed yourself to this or that, so here’s your lack of offspring, or deformed offspring. In the animal kingdom, animals compete to reproduce themselves.

      Women get told they can go to college and work in a high level career and have a family. They can, but something suffers, and if they think having minimum wage workers raise their kids is a noble idea, they have another thing coming.

  7. namae nanka says:

    “I wonder how many of those women doctors were pressured to attend medical school in order to fill a quota. How many of them lacked basic information about their own reproductive options when they made that decision? ”

    LOL

    “We should oppose such policies – but common sense would dictate that if a woman is willing and qualified for a particular profession, we should let her in.”

    “I enjoyed Angry Harry’s article. I never realized that so many women physicians dropped out in the UK.”

    While reading about canadian doctor shortage, I came across a woman doctor who complained that it wasn’t merely women who were doing more part-time work but men too. Whereas the trailblazers were masculinised in the sense that they tried to match the long-hours of old white males, now both sexes are getting feminised!

    “but this always leads to feminist pressure and a capitulation to their agenda”

    indeed, the horde that follows the good, sometimes not so good, women, stinks up the place for everyone.

    on the horrors of feminism:

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/06/how-feminism-wrecked-the-u-s-forest-service/

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men#Matrimonial_Privileges_Of_Women.

    • worx92 says:

      Good post Yes, men are becoming feminized. Look at pickup trucks…once a guy’s vehicle, look how rounded off they are, they look feminized and not even off-road vehicles.

  8. Stealth says:

    Here’s another meaningless term I want thrown out: “conservatism.” It’s time we put this word out to pasture, as it really has no precise meaning.

    • worx92 says:

      Wow, I’m just going along, nodding…I thought that too, about “conservatism” because most conservatives now are very liberalized!!

  9. CanSpeccy says:

    It is one thing to allow women to pursue what careers they chose. It is another thing to educate girls to want to pursue the same careers as men, while encouraging boys to engage in girlish pursuits. Such education constitutes a program of national auto-genocide.

    In addition to the reason stated by Red, the harsh treatment, until quite recent times, of unmarried mothers worked well in eugenic terms. A girl knew she’d pay dearly for getting knocked-up, yet many did anyway. In Britain, until the 50’s, something like one-third of all children were conceived out of wedlock. What caused this high incidence of illegitimacy? I suggest that it was irresistible impulse, which took effect only when a girl was with a really sharp fellow. The result, some very attractive bastard children — some parented by their natural parents after a shot-gun wedding, others by adoptive parents.

    Now, through state-imposed sex education, every girl in Britain is trained to be a slut, with expertise in birth control, the result being that it is only the really dopey ones who get pregnant, thus generating Britain’s growing underclass of unemployables. And the welfare system incentivizes this form of dysgenic breeding, by guaranteeing single mothers a greater degree of financial independence than they could achieve in any other way.

    The nations of Western Europe are destroying themselves, and the process is surely terminal, since it is impossible to conceive of the necessary reforms to reverse the present course of events, i.e., abolition of the welfare state, and politically correct education.

    • worx92 says:

      It’s the same in America. The media won’t leave girls alone and let them be children…they are expected to be sexual at a very early age, and social-climbing parents push this along.

  10. map says:

    It’s ridiculous to suggest that women get better grades and thus are better candidates for medical school. A man applying to med school is evaluated solely on his mcat, gpa, quality of university and difficulty of major. He does not have the option of using interesting personal anecdotes (sob stories) to get ahead or latch onto the myriad “Women in…” programs that pepper almost every university.

    It is also the case that genius is a male province. The number of smart men is larger than the number of smart women. It is simply not possible to have equal or greater numbers of women than men in the medical schools without socially promoting inferior women.

    Even if women are as qualified, they end up destroying entire professions. A man works long hours to make more money so that he can upgrade his prospective wives and have a family. In the process of working more and earning more money, men also get really good at their jobs. Thus, everyone benefits.

    Women end up working less because making more money does not improve a woman’s prospects in the marriage market. No man cares how much money a woman makes. The result is that women shift a profession away from money-making to “lifestyle actualization”, where free time, part-time work, and other intangibles become more important. Women feminize workplaces to the point of unproductivity.

  11. sestamibi says:

    Red said:

    “In fact one of the primary reasons that hardline religions keep their population growth high is their insistence of keeping women in a low default status and giving them power and status primarily though the birth and raising of children.”

    But Philip Longman said it first:

    http://tinyurl.com/3ykeej

    Human-Stupidity asked:

    “Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?”

    Here’s one admonishing her medical sisters not to slack off and waste a very expensive medical education often paid for at taxpayer expense:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12sibert.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

  12. worx92 says:

    I’ve met some good women doctors. But there is the undercurrent, that there is some competition with males. A woman doctor, engineer, lawyer, is seen as more impressive than her counterpart. I’m a woman, and I see this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s