Sunday, October 23, 2016

Modernizing Feminism


    Modernizing the world is something that is championed by many people. Modernization has been the key to many of the advancements of the previous century and has been the reason why powers such as Russia and China have been able to transcend from an agrarian society into world powers. With this modernizing force has brought many societal changes for better or for worse.

    Modernizing is a simple word, it means to make modern. People are largely in favor of this with the exception of a few groups of people who may share the opinions of the Luddites. Yet another similar word, womanizing, does not seem to carry the same format for definition. Upon first glance, it should mean “to make into a woman” , yet it is often used to describe a lecherous man. I bring this up because feminism is often touted as “a movement seeking that females be treated the same as men.” This would be strikingly contrary to the womanization I describe above, as traditionally women and men perform very different roles in society.

    Women are needed to create children, both male and female, as well as traditionally rear these children when the man is unable to on account of working. The women were given this role because of their natural maternal ability to breastfeed obviously, but this was one of the many physical differences that defined a traditional society where women are not treated the same as men. Due to women naturally being physically weaker than men, men were the ones expected to fight the enemies of society in terms of war as well as perform the strenuous manual labor. I bring up societal roles because feminism seems to oppose the natural order of things. As much as it may be possible to support the notion in a society that is less defined by physical labor and war on account of machinery and the development of firearms, seeking complete societal equality is being voluntarily ignorant to the physical differences between men and women.

    Were both men and women held to the same standard, in an allegorical world where jobs are assigned at birth, women would be assigned jobs that they were physically less capable of doing such as mining or construction, and a man who is assigned to be a wet-nurse would  not perform very well at all. Female equality in pay is a noble venture, but in a scenario where a person is payed to dig ditches or mine for coal, paying men and women equally for a days work would actually be paying them disparately in terms of the amount of labor performed, as the man who is physically more capable of gaining muscle mass to perform the strenuous labor at a faster rate and for longer periods of time is mining more coal per hour from the mine than the woman, and from a capitalistic point, it make sense to pay this man more, because the coal is the reason the employee is payed money, not the fact that he is laboring for an amount of time.

    It is for reasons like this that defending the idea that the sexes should be indistinguishable from each other is non-sensical. The reason that this idea has become popular in the last half century is on account of the rise of the independent woman, where before most women were happy to perform the traditional role of a homemaker and let her husband make enough money for the both of them. Sadly because of the cost of modern living, this is often not possible around the world for many people who do not earn very much money.  Herein lies the issue, because as much as welfare should provide enough money for women to be homemakers rather than employees, it does not, and I believe this is accountable for the large portion of the population aging that is happening in the 1st world. Women are choosing to work rather than having children and this is because of the economic insecurity that arises if they do not work, even if they have a husband.

    In a modern society, childbearing is seen as a luxury or otherwise a mistake, rather than a societal necessity. Traditionally, it was seen as a necessity so much so that women were seldom expected to work at all. It is the growing sentiment of women since the 1950s to move away from this style of society and rather to seek the same lifestyle as men who work and are convinced to do this for their survival and then to climb Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as the result of their labor. As much as it may seem like “choosing to live a better life” by spending one’s time and effort to produce a lifestyle that one desires and enjoys more so than the traditional lifestyle, it is much worse for society. Human children are the fuel that allows a society to continue to exist, and as the role of women is society shifts from predominantly being homemakers that bear and rear children towards a role that is equal to a man, being a small cog in the machine of capitalism, this slowly escalates until capitalism and any societal system that suffers from this predicament no longer has the employees to fuel itself because the women chose to work rather than bear children.

    In the long run, employing women to do common work rather than employing them to bear and rear children is the short-sighted greed of capitalism essentially shooting itself in the foot. Allegorically this is the farmer deciding that he would rather harvest an extra portion of his crops than allow enough of it to bear seeds so that he can plant a full field in the next season. This is the reason why his field is not as full of crops in the following seasons, and this allegory represents population aging.

    From both a societal and economic perspective, this is why I few feminism and the quest for women to be equal to men in society as a mental illness. No healthy economy should chose to have labor in the short term at the cost of having enough employees int he future. In times of crisis, such as World War 2, it was acceptable for society to chose to sacrifice the employees of the future by expecting the women to work, because there was a chance that if that did not occur than there would be no future at all. However, in times of peace, when society is not at threat of being destroyed, women should not be expected to work as if the world will collapse if they do not. Clearly. anyone with common sense should have the foresight to see that having employees in the future is by far the more reasonable decision than the one to have labor in the short term.

    It is simply because of the profluence of these feminist ideals that women, being social creatures, are ensnared by the mob mentality of feminism and indoctrinated by it’s delusional concepts of “equality”. Because feminism is often directly opposed to women fulfilling the traditional role of a woman instead of being an advocate for societal equality, I view it as a form of transsexualism, a mental illness where the women dissociate themselves from their own sex and see themselves as the same as a man, rather than something completely different. Since  feminists oppose the traditional role of a woman, and seek equal pay for doing a man’s work rather than better pay for performing a woman’s role of being a mother, I also view this as a form of misogyny, as the feminists are not seeking better treatment and payment for traditional women who are professional mothers and homemakers, but only for those that want to assimilate into having the societal role traditionally performed by men.

    The roots of feminism are found in many movements, but a large portion is from the hippie movement. Hippies were antisocial people that would simply oppose society and the societal norm out of their own conviction rather than having any sort of reason. A seemingly drug induced paranoia of becoming a part of “the man” that caused them to become the antithesis of a modern economy. Some of these people took their anti-social nature to extreme levels, failing to work, being vagabonds or sorts, doing copious amounts of drugs, and even refraining from wearing clothes and bathing in some cases. It was from this social movement that a large wave of feminism arose, and for this reason I see it as a vestigial part of the hippie movement, a group of people who would oppose society without having any legitimate reason, which is much like feminism today. Just like the hippies, feminism is defended by things like feelings, emotions, indignation, antisocial independence, a sense of being wronged, delusion, and an aggressive mob mentality.

    This is why i believe a movement that could be described as “womanism” should be the solution to the feminist crisis. Rather than be upset that women are not treated equally in the traditionally exclusively male world of competitive capitalism, a womanist would be upset that the traditional role of a woman is respected and supported less than people who are drug dealers, murderers, and rapists. These criminals all get free food, clothing, and shelter, while women and their children are often starving and homeless. It is this sort of disrespect to women, who are literally the soil in which a nation grows from, that cannot be tolerated. The traditional role of a woman should be one of the most defended and supported roles that a human can perform in society, which would mean making vast improvements tot he support systems available for mothers and their children.

     I would argue in favor of expanding these support systems to make being a traditional woman far more appealing than being a lowly employee making a trivial hourly wage. Any reasonable person could see that a woman having two children and raising them well is essentially having two employees in twenty years, and possibly four employees in forty years, rather than chasing to have one employee now who is too responsible to attempt to have children in a society where she is expected to struggle to work 40 or more hours a week for trivial amounts of money to keep herself and he children alive.

    Feminism is arguing in favor of short sighted and unsustainable capitalism where womanism and the defense of the traditional role of women is arguing in favor of a healthy sustainable society. While I do not oppose women that would rather perform the traditional role of a man by working, I simply feel that the traditional role of a woman as someone who bears and raises children should be defended and provided compensation just as much as those who chose to work. There is no reason to reward women who chose to work rather than be a homemaker for short changing the future in exchange for an increased yield in the present when those who invest in the future by bearing and raising children are left with minimal compensation through the weak welfare system and some are even left to starve and die, homeless on the streets.
   

No comments:

Post a Comment