I am a male citizen of the United States. As such, I realize that this may immediately disqualify me in the eyes of some from discoursing on modern feminism. However, I would urge any such minds to remain open to what I, as a citizen, son, brother, and human, share here. Please understand that I intend to avoid any reckless generalizations while likewise observing and dissecting visible facts. I am first and foremost a reporter; facts mold opinion, not vice versa.

In light of that, allow me to share some facts about modern day American feminism. It appears, at least to this mind, that the prominent movement, which was at first concerned with the equal treatment and employment of the female sex, has now evolved into a confusing and self-deprecating left-wing smear machine. A casual listen to the leaders and captains of American feminism reveals a deep misunderstanding of what really benefits women. Worse, there is, in many instances, growing sexism on the side of these activists toward the male gender. In short, what is being revealed on a daily basis is an illogical and completely unsubstantiated vitriol towards all things not deemed "equalizing."

It is worthy of note that today's prominent feminist organizations support abortion. While highly political in scope, the abortion debate has more intimate connotations. First of all, let us claim enough intellectual integrity to denounce those who say they support "choice," not actually abortion. This is a fundamentally contradicted worldview; feminists do not support the right of an employer to choose to pay less to female workers. Nor do they support the right of a male to "choose" to rape a female. They (correctly) believe both are morally wrong and, therefore, must not be tolerated. So if for nothing else but the sake of consistency, let those who identify themselves as "pro-choice" admit they are so because they see nothing wrong with it.

With that established, let us observe more. According to it's own statement, the Feminist Majority Foundation seeks to "improve women's lives." We can agree that this is a worthy goal. However, one can easily be a little conflicted when trying to reconcile this goal with the group's aggressive pro-choice rhetoric. I am disturbed after hearing these two statements, and then reading a state-commissioned report on the adverse affects of abortion on many women in South Dakota (who recently banned abortion, a move almost totally panned by the feminist groups). I won't recite what the report documents because it deserves to be read, not just quoted. Yet the lengthy document has received precious little attention from the FMF. Why? Wouldn't you agree that what women say hurts them should at least be considered heavily? The fact that no such attempt at consideration has (to the public, at any rate) occurred within feminist groups is more than a little confusing.

But feminist groups across the USA appear to be ignorant of more than one threat to women's health. There is another slithery anti-woman culprit out there, and he's on the magazine rack at your local grocery store. And you're television set. And you're computer screen. Yes, I am referring to smut, or pornography; images that encourage men to view females as valuable only in their sexuality and defeats the spirit of women who don't look exactly like the paper-thin models. These widely available magazines, shows, movies, sites, and ads accomplish their mission brilliantly. Have we forgotten the admission of Ted Bundy? Porn is not trivial. In fact, we have evidence that it is brutally crucial. I am offended by the stores that tell me women are good for one thing — and whisper to my sisters that if they don't "have it," they're no good. Why aren't you feminists angered too? Not one link on NOW.com to "Stop Porn NOW!" Instead, what I find is "The Truth About George," "Equal Marriage," and "Demand Katrina Aid." What? This was supposed to be for and about women, not another moveon.org.

If you're not willing to quote to the South Dakota report, why not link to it? From your article, I only get the faintest sense of what it may have to say.

Also, it might be worth pointing out the context of "Mary" from the original article: "Monologues by members of the FAL poked fun at feminist stereotypes and set the tone of an evening of sarcasm and wit." Whether you think the stereotype goes deeper than mockery or not, it's a bit disingenous to quote that passage without indicating that the reporter on the scene saw it as hyperbole.

Latest Posts » Home » About » Press » Blog » Features » Fresh Comments » Become a Blogcritic » Ads / Review Material » RSS » Desicritics This site and all content Blogcritics.org and the respective authors. All Rights Reserved.

This is cache, read story here