My recent acquisition of a Smartphone enables me, sometimes, to check on blogs without actually sitting behind the office desk and turning on the computer (which I often just can't find the time to do, nowadays). Today, I was lucky enough to come across this fabulous post by Daniel Greenfield, titled "The Unbearable Lightness of Feminism". Here are a couple of select quotes:
"Professional feminists respond to the negative feedback by claiming that feminism is simply equality. But if feminism were equality, women, and for that matter men, wouldn’t dislike it so much.
Professional feminists don’t want to fight rape; they want to fight an intangible “rape culture”. They don’t want to help women. Instead they want to exploit the problems facing women to advance their own agendas and careers. They are part of a movement cut off from ordinary people and rooted in academia. Few women want to identify as feminists, because feminism doesn’t identify with them."
Do take the time to read the entire post if you can. Some of the comments below are very insightful, too.
All the talk of "equality" is mostly nonsense, because equality doesn't exist in nature or naturally developing societies, and when someone artificially tries to create it, it doesn't usually lead to anything good. Equal opportunities for equally capable individuals who can do the same kind of work equally well, that's fantastic. But usually it goes far beyond that. Examples are not exactly hard to come by:
- Standards of physical performance in the army are lowered in order to enable women enter elite combat units. Thus, the performance level of the entire unit is compromised, in order to stroke the ego of a few conceited individuals who label this as "progress" and "enlightement".
- Women demand longer, government-funded maternity leave. The money would of course go out of the taxpayer's pocket. And there's no going around the fact that being out of your chosen field for a few years lowers your professional level. No amount of government funding will compensate for that loss of competence.
- Firing a pregnant worker results in very unpleasant consequences for the employer. This was established in order to protect the right of pregnant women, but the fact is that it's very much abused. Basically a lot of pregnant women consciously decide to put up their feet and relax at work, because they know their employer probably won't dare to fire them. As a result, many employers think twice before even hiring a woman of childbearing age. And from their point of view, they are absolutely right.
- On the other hand, we are told that government-funded daycare from the earliest age is the answer, encouraging women who are otherwise "stuck at home" to leave their babies in the care of strangers and go do something useful with their lives. Besides the fact that this concept is incredibly demeaning (implying that if a woman stays home with her child/ren, it's only for lack of other opportunities - or, to word it simply, she'll leave her children if only she is paid enough), I wonder if anyone even thinks of the fact that no matter how you slice it, it takes women to care for children. I've never met a daycare or preschool worker who wasn't female. So... yes, of course young children have always been, and will be cared for by women. But if they receive the personal full-time care and attention of their mother, why, that's a waste of resources.
- When several people apply for a public office, their capabilities are of course taken into question, but... alarm call! Alarm call! We must have such-and-such percentage of women. But what to do if the most suitable professionals applying for the position are all male? Sorry, tough luck. Have to weed part of them out and somehow squeeze a woman into the office. Think I'm exaggerating? Not at all. I've actually witnessed this in the process of a formation of a small committee. The most suitable people were chosen, and then it occurred to someone that none of them are women. The head of the committee flat-out refused to give up on people he found most capable, just for the sake of fitting a woman in. This caused a lot of offended feelings in "under-represented" women, despite the fact that many of them were members of all-female committees, and no man ever protested against the under-representation of his sex.
- A sobering fact: in Israel, about 400 people kill themselves each year. About half of them are divorced or separated men. In contrast, about 70% of the divorces in Israel are initiated by women. Coincidence? On a regular basis, innocent men are stripped of their rights, separated from their children, and forced into unbearable financial consequences - often before any evidence against them is presented. They are men, ergo, dangerous beasts who must be strictly controlled. Actually this is such a wide subject that I wish and hope to do a separate post on it, if and as time allows.