Home / Classroom Controversy / Feminism Sucks

Feminism Sucks

Let me tell all you good folks a little story. When I was an undergraduate way back in the 1980s, feminism was just emerging (or at least, my awareness of it was emerging). At that time women all over the Western world were waking up to the fact that their lives sucked, and it was true. By and large women were kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchens of the world, or working in low page and demeaning jobs. Not only that, but they were abused as well. They experienced economic abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse at horrific levels. In my Sociology 288 course I use the film The Vienna Tribunal and when you’ve seen that you’ll know what I’m talking about. The situation was (and is) bad, and I see it every time I do relationship therapy. Women got it bad, it is true. Oppressive relationships, oppressive economic situation, oppressive families, oppressive homes, and oppressive jobs. The truth is, if you are female, it can often suck to be you. I get that. And you know, so did the feminists and I’ll tell you, it was interesting to watch feminism emerge as a powerful force. When women started to open their eyes and see what life was really like for them, they were quite unhappy, pissed off even, at what they saw. They saw exploitation, child abuse, domestic slavery, ecological disaster, violence, and war  and behind it all was the the asshole male. It was obvious. Men were the ones in power, after all.  Men exploited the workers, men exploited the children, men raped their nieces, men sodomized the altar boys, men swung the swords, men started the wars, and men were ruining the planet.

Men were the ones doing all the horrible things in the world.

Women are the victims, men are the perpetrators.

It was, and is, patently true.

So what did they do?

Well, not wanting to be “victims,” the women took action. They, not unreasonably, began to create barriers and walls between themselves and the men that surrounded them. They created “women’s studies” programs in universities and didn’t allow men to enter. They created women-only support groups where they could talk about their experiences.  They wrote about how the family was evil and oppressive for women, how work devalued the female, and how much raising children by themselves really, really, sucked. And in all this the general perception was that it was all the male’s fault. It was patently true. Back then there was no such thing as a female politician, or a female CEO, or even a female manager. Power was in the hands of the men, and that was the way it was.

Of course, not all feminists, not all women, took the hard line. Some women preferred the softer touch of Liberal Feminism and some women even loved their family, and their children, and their husbands, and didn’t mind the domestic work, and so couldn’t see what the fuss was about. But of course many did not like it and so action continued, and with good effect. Now, thirty years later, we have women politicians, women CEOs, and women managers, and it’s all great and it’s all good  except for one little thing…

These days the exploitation and the violence and the disregard and the oppression are worse than they were thirty years ago.

Things have changed for some women, that’s for sure, but the general state of the world has only deteriorated. War is still a problem, exploitation is still a problem, violence is still a problem, rape is still a problem, and inequality is getting worse. Only now the problem is compounded by the general deterioration in the fabric of the family and the quality of relationships. And what’s worse, now women are participating in the oppression as well. Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister, was probably the first to show that women could be as mean, callous, insensitive to the poor, and selfish as any man could be.

But who am I to judge, and anyway, the point is, for all the bluff, bluster, and criticism, feminists failed to change things much and the reason for that is simple to pin down. Feminists failed because they blamed only one sex. You see, the truth is, it is not just men’s fault that the world is the way it is, it is women’s fault as well.  The truth is, women are just as much to blame for all the world’s evils as men are for the simple and irrefutable sociological fact that it is women who raise the children to be the way they are. The truth is women are now, and have always been, the ones who are primarily responsible for socializing the next generation of men.

Isn’t that true everywhere on the planet?

Who looks after the babies?

Who does all the care giving at home?

Who works in the day cares?

Who are the elementary teachers in schools?

Who socializes the children?

The answer, women do.

Men go to work outside the home, but women raise the children. You can’t argue with this, you can see it with your own eyes. In the homes, women are left to raise the kids. In the day cares, the attendants are primarily female. In the schools, at least at the elementary level, women are the primary workers.  Women raise, nurture, and socialize the children and so if a man grows up to be a rapist, or a psychotic CEO, or a callous politician, or a pedophile, or a greedy capitalist whose only goal is proving how good he is by how much money he’s worth,  it is because women made them that way.

It is obvious, isn’t it?

Even now, men don’t have much to do with the kids, at least in the early years. Men go to work, they go play golf, they hang out with their buddies, and in general they minimize their contact with their children. Women remain primarily responsible for socialization. They are the ones that change, feed, and train the girls to be the girls, and the boys to be boys–and that is the problem because, if you want my opinion, it is the women (the mothers, the teachers, the day care workers) who gender-socialize the boys to be callous, insensitive, unemotional, and competitive to the point where dominating others becomes the sole salve for the damaged attachments and destroyed self-esteem bequeathed on them by the oppressions of The System.

Are you primarily responsible for the socialization of children in your life? Then ask yourself these questions.

  • Have you ever ever actively suppressed the emotions of the men/boys in your life because “big boys don’t cry.”
  • Have you ever told a male to “man up” and quit being such a baby?
  • Have you ever withheld love/affection from a boy/man because they didn’t perform up to expectations?
  • Have you ever put a boy down for failing to perform?
  • Have you ever made a male feel small for having a feeling, or not being good enough, or not living up to all the others around them?
  • Have you ever treated a child differently, based on their genital configuration?

Well, if so, then don’t be so surprised when they grow up callous, unfeeling, and so competitive that exploiting children in China is not a problem for them. The big sociological truth is, if men are the way they are it is because of the women who raised them.

It is obvious, isn’t it?

Men are the victims, women are the perpetrators.

Now if you’re getting worked up here, take a deep breath and calm down. I don’t really believe that women are exclusively to blame, and I don’t really think feminism sucks. They have always had a point, and a good one! Men are on the hook for the neglectful way they treat their kids, for the “male” socialization they reinforce, for the abuse they enact, and for the actions they take (or do not take) with their children. The real truth is men and women are in this together, but that’s the point. It’s not “men” who are exclusively to blame for the world’s ills, women play a role as well. The point is, if the world’s messed up, we’re all to blame. Neither men nor women are innocent bystanders here. Walling yourself off in a gender-bunker, drawing a boundary, and pointing fingers at the opposite sex doesn’t make you part of the solution, it makes you part of the problem.

So what are you going to do?

Well, if you want my opinion, don’t blame and point fingers at each other, just focus on the real culprit, the real villain which is Capitalism, gender socialization, our weird global obsession with competition and performance, and the ridiculous ideas we often countenance as truth (like its all “men’s” fault, or “big boys don’t cry” or beating another person into the ground (competitive wise) is actually a good thing). You want to make the world a better place, then don’t allow yourself to be divided by anger, rage, ideology, or the manipulative touch of the modern mass media. The only way to change the world is to stand together and work as one regardless of gender, age, ethnicity, or whatever. As the old saying goes, united we stand…

Additional Reading

 

 

Cite This Article

Dr. S. (2012). Feminism Sucks. The Socjourn. [https://sociology.org/does-feminism-suck/]

Lila, the Revolutionary

By: William T. Hathaway

Lila, the Revolutionary is a fable for adults about an eight-year-old girl—smart, charming, and tough as can be—who creates a world revolution for social justice. No one ever told her she couldn't end poverty and inequality, so she doesn't doubt that she can Just Do It! Starting with the Nike shoe factory where she works. Like the boy in "The Emperor's New Clothes," Lila can see the reality that adults are blind to. And she's not shy about pointing it out. Her story is a call to action: If Lila can do it, so can we. She convinces us that Yes, a better world is possible, and we're the ones to create it.


[ Kindle | Amazon.com | Book Finder ]

About Dr. Michael S. (Dr. S)

Michael S. (Dr. S.) is a scientist, sociologist, author, mystic, and mystical poet whose interests are human psychology, human society, spirituality, consciousness, global pedagogy, and global transformation. He's busy writing about a dozen books all of which are aimed at enlightening the people and transforming the planet in line with the purpose, and for the benefit of, All. For more from Michael, visit michaelsharp.org, sociology.org, or his personal favorite, The Lightning Path.

14 comments

  1. To be honest, the whole feminism thing makes me nauseous. Them there big-girl-power-house-feminists are at many times no better than the men they condemn for oppressive behaviors towards females.
    When you think about it, how ridiculous is it to base an individuals entire existance on what kind of plumbing they have down there. We are divine sparks of One.

    So sit up straight and act like the genital configuration you were born with why don’t you
    or not.

  2. It’s obvious true that sexism and the lack of gender equality and opportunity is not only mans’ fault but I do think you are forgeting what a feminist really is. A feminist wants equality on society. Feminism is not hate for men (unlike some think so) and feminist do not necessarily blame man for gender problems. I’m not saying you can’t find a women who blames man, there is so much diferent people in the world but THIS ISN’T WHAT FEMINISM IS ABOUT.
    I do agree a proper education would change alot of thinks in a way both women and man see the world. The true is this lack of good education is creating a apathyc society and who mostly is to blame are non feminists. Not being feminist is the same thing as being sexist. Because you either belive equaliy or not. There is not much space for don’t having a proper opinion. Do not having a proper opinion means you don’t care about womens right. The women who educates badly their sons who doesn’t think of the importance of equality or who deosn’t belive on equality for womens are as much sexist as sexist mans. There is no diference. I have seen alot of prejudice and misconception of women about their own gender.
    Man can and should be feminists. In fact there are some feminist man. I defend the right of people who aren’t from the same ethnicity group of mine (also other minorities) why shouldn’t man do the same with women?

    (Sorry for grammar mistakes but english is not my native language.)

  3. “I’m not saying you can’t find a women who blames man, there is so much diferent people in the world but THIS ISN’T WHAT FEMINISM IS ABOUT.”

    So what is Feminism?

    The examples that have been on display in my neck of the woods are quite ugly, behaving the same way men have behaved towards women, only the women use words like ‘the sisterhood’ or ‘the sisters’rather than the ‘brotherhood’ or ‘brothers’which is specifying a particular gender while excluding the other. It appears to me that feminism in the United States has become a pay back time for women towards the men who have dominated them for centuries. This goes back to the day of the Greeks where women were not considered citizens but merely possesions of men that made babies and tended the home and slaves while the men were out fighting. (Great society them there Greeks. ;)’)

    Women enter the workforce and use sex just as much as men do.

    There are cultures that have several catagories for sexual orientation and several gender identities just as there are patriarchal, matriarchal and other forms of organizing family and groups in varying cultures.

    I really believe that it all amounts to seeing the other person as an individual and liking them based on who they are and not what they are.

  4. I have to admit, I’ve been thinking like this for a long time, but I’ve always been attacked because of my opinion. I’ve always considered it strange why there aren’t enough men in gender studies, for true equality can only come if both the women and the male are aware of the problem.

    The only thing all of us are forgetting is the the breeding of certain power (Machiavellian, or Nietzsche) ideologies stretches moral codes, and gives consolidation for nearly every form of exploitation and power struggle there is. When there is a certain form of academical blessing for those types of behavior we have to question ourselves how much power do words truly have, and how much responsibility do sociologists have for not devising more easily accessible (hard terminology free) manuscripts that can heal maybe some of the problems in society.

    My answer is that sociologist themselves are not fully aware just how much they can help, and that they are only human. (what do you think?)


    • how much responsibility do sociologists have for not devising more easily accessible (hard terminology free) manuscripts that can heal maybe some of the problems in society.

      I think we have a big responsibility, hence the existence of The Socjourn, a publication set up to transform traditional scholarly publication and give sociologists a creative outlet whereby they can build a more accessible and transformative Sociology. Of course, in order to do that you have to train Sociologists to be more creative, hence the existence of The Socjourn, a publication set up to give Sociologists an outlet where they can practice being more creative and communicative. It is interesting that you make some comments on creativity over on this other thread

      https://sociology.org/media-studies/what-is-creativity

      They are both directly related. The basic problem for Sociologists, and all scientists really, is that the educational process that they go through is designed to limit creativity and control intellectual output. It is very hard to be creative, think new things, and express new ideas, after so many years of listening to, and “citing” (read “aping in your own words”) what others have to say. First step towards breaking out of that anti-creative box is to stop being so dependent on others and start relying more on one’s own voice. Of course, there is practice involved here. You can’t expect to right brilliant and creative intellectual prose right away, but that shouldn’t stop you from starting, and practicing. Even if the first attempts are a bit stilted and confined, cliched and hackneyed, it is practice that makes frees the spirit and enabled brilliant creative endeavors (as any artist will tell you).

  5. thank you :)

  6. “First step towards breaking out of that anti-creative box is to stop being so dependent on others and start relying more on one’s own voice”

    Ok. Make your own damn sandwich!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFRR0a0ONLI

    You can add the media to your list of norm creators. We really haven’t evolved from this type of behavior have we?

  7. ummm ….. women raise men to be what they are ? …. i have heard this one before …….

    so when a little boy sees his mom whacked around by daddy dearest, he doesn’t learn anything ? when a little boy sees his mom being put down for everything she does not do well, he doesn’t learn anything? when a little boy sees his little sister being denied little pleasures by the “head of the family” he doesn’t learn anything? btw, doesn’t daddy ever tell his little boy “to man up or humiliates him for being so called “sissy” ? …. How convenient to push the blame of the entire messed up civilization on the women. Men just go out, do their manly duty and work, while women sit around devising ways to ruin the next generation. And after explicitly stating that it is a woman that creates a pedophile/ rapist/ psychopath, you neatly tie it up and say “oh wait, don’t get hyper …. its everyone’s fault …. there happy?”

    • ya men gender socialize children as well. And ya, men are to blame as well. The point is, it is everyone’s fault. Every person, mother and father, has to open up and be accountable for their role in the mess we’ve created. Women play a major role in socializing the next generation, as do men. I’m not pushing all the blame onto women, that’s just a device that people like you use to avoid taking responsibility. You’ve neatly dismissed the whole argument and now you can go on your righteous and merry way. For myself, I’m just saying, whether you are mom or dad, take a good hard look at the way you treat the boys and girls in your life and if you want to make a change, change how you treat the children. Don’t socialize the boys to be disconnected and violent, and don’t socialize the girls to be emotionally abusive and exclusionary.

  8. Anna Brix Thomsen

    “The basic problem for Sociologists, and all scientists really, is that the educational process that they go through is designed to limit creativity and control intellectual output. It is very hard to be creative, think new things, and express new ideas, after so many years of listening to, and “citing” (read “aping in your own words”) what others have to say. First step towards breaking out of that anti-creative box is to stop being so dependent on others and start relying more on one’s own voice. ”

    Very cool comment discussion here.
    Definitely agree.

    I am currently working on my masters thesis where I am incorporating a lot of feminist research, not BECAUSE it is feminist, but because it fits well with my research. As a sociologist, I’ve not worked with feminist research at all. At undergraduate school, even in fairly ‘equal’ Scandinavia we’ve not worked with feminist theories/theorists at all. I’ve actually grown up in a very socialist feminist communities and early on discarded it as ‘old fashioned’ and ‘stuck up’ hehe. However I find it problematic, both the stigma that feminism has, but also how feminists themselves confirm that stigma by focusing so overtly on male/female inequality. Within the research project I am working with for example, gender is relevant as one category of inequality, but it is the total picture that is the most interesting/important. I would like the outcome of feminist scholarship/research to be given an entirely different name. There are probably tons of discussions about this. But from the perspective of a junior researcher who is first and foremost a sociologist, I find it difficult to use feminist theory and research even within having to use the word ‘feminist’ because it’s already polarizing and separating itself and thus not standing as a solid sociological theory with a right of its own. There are some really cool feminist theories but they get extremely limited and obscured by the very fact that it is ‘feminist’. For example: I don’t care that it is women in particular who are being oppressed in this or that system or relationship. The fact that anyone – including animals and the planet as whole – is oppressed by forces that are not best for anyone is what matters. And unfortunately women have tended to then see ‘equality’ as them getting the same position as men – which is obviously not the point.

    Thanks.

    • that’s good. You’re pointing to a major problem with the practice of citation in that is helps re-create “the box.” Everytime you cite a feminist author you are putting your discourse either into (or out of of) that box. You are defining things in relation to what has already been defined and personally I think it a bad thing for all the problems you cite above. It is a way to control discourse. You self identify as feminist, the mass media dismisses feminism, you’re dismissed in the minds of the masses as a result. And so just like that, poof, the challenge of feminism is dismissed. and you’re right, feminists don’t help their cause because they play “the game” and they are proud of it, not realizing that what they do disempowers them, or at least, reduces their impact.

      and ya, the point isn’t for women to become oppressors like men, the point is (or was) to stop oppression. I’ve met a lot of very oppressive man and women in my day and many of them have held high the banners of socialism, feminism, marxism, and so on, but they are just part of the system, and the problem, just like everyone else.

  9. Anna Brix Thomsen

    Thanks Mike.

    Yes exactly. What should matter is how the knowledge produced in academia can be applied to understand and change practical reality in a way that is best for all.

    But academia is so caught in its infatuation with knowledge itself and with naming itself for purposes of ‘legacy’ that has nothing to do with practical application of solutions in reality. I’ve read so many scholars who’s got cool suggestions and perspectives on how to change society for the better, but then 20 years later (or 200 years later) the same theories are recaptured with new words and no practical change has happened.

    As a sociologist who is interested in feminist theory and research because of it’s potential to uncover discourses of oppression and not because it is ‘feminist’ or thought-up by women – it is certainly limiting to not be able to transcend the feminist scholarly legacy – and ironically also the oppression of females in the same breath.Because as long as feminist scholarship is calling itself feminism, it will single out women as either ‘more than’ or ‘less than’ which is not the point. It does not matter whether a theory is coined by males or females or Caucasians or Asians. What matters is the applicability of the theory to explain and solve the problems we are facing on earth, especially due to our human nature as a whole. Various categories of people being suppressed are just that: structural categories who fit into a much larger network that essentially has to do with who we are as a human race as a whole.