The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
I just found the One Cosmos site in December and really like it. If you hadn't seen it yet, I was going to point you there. His insights are very good reads.
Godwin had me going in and started losing me with increasing speed, starting with: "For example, the feminist movement of the 1960’s and 70’s had very little to do with honoring femininity, but generally degraded and devalued it. It largely became a vehicle for the expression of female envy, giving angry and maladjusted women license to imitate the men they envied. After all, few women are less feminine than the typical NOW activist. Nor are they masculine, however. A woman cannot actually become a man, but can only become a monstrous blending of male and female."
Yes. Feminism wasn't about half of our species wanting to be treated as full citizens and allowed as much participation in our society as other people with the same gifts of intelligence, drive, and capability who happened to have different genitals had, it was because women were JEALOUS OF MEN AND THEIR MANLY ESSENCE AND MUTATED INTO HIDEOUS HALF-MEN.
"Many of today's young men seem to have no fight in them at all. Not for them to rescue damsels in distress from the barbarians."
Well, in my post-Samuel Colt universe, if words are inadequate to the level of barbarity the damsel always has the option of shooting the prick and settling the matter without a Real Man's assistance being strictly necessary to her salvation. Terribly mannish of me, really.
I've read others manage to make several of the same points (several individual of which I do certainly agree with) without managing to come off as quite so misogynist.
I don't know, LabRat. The militant leadership of the feminist movement, so far as I can determine, met the criteria Dr. Goddard illustrated. The same cannot be said for the rank-and-file, but look at where we are today, where if a woman chooses to be a mother and home-maker, they are shunned and vilified by the feminist movement.
I don't think Goddard is misogynist. I think he believes there's a difference between men and women that the feminist movement insisted did not exist.
Think about why what he wrote offended you.
You are correct in describing the current makeup of the remnants of the feminist movement (most of the reasonable feminists got what they wanted- good jobs, actual hard enforcement of laws against rape and domestic abuse, etc.), and aspects of it in the past. But the fact of the matter is that there would have been nothing for the militants to ride the momentum of and no opportunity for the hard Left to shape the movement if there had been no widespread social discrimination against women, or any willingness on the part of more conservative circles to entertain doing something about that. The reason what was written annoyed me is that it sounds a lot like liberals do on the subject of Cold War-era politics- as if there was no reason any of what followed did other than women wanted to emasculate men/right-wing politicians wanted to control the population through fear.
I have no idea if Dr. Goddard is a misogynist or not. I do know that his description of "masculine" versus "feminine" values/merits, in conjunction with the assertion that "blending" of sexual characteristics is de facto destructive, seems to leave little role for women in modern society OTHER than homemaker, aside from the fact that it seems to brush aside the fact that there is far more variation in temperament between individuals than between the (yes, I acknowledge there is a significant difference) sexes.
Trust me; my reaction was not knee-jerk.
Okay, my clarity really suffered there. It's been a lousy day; seems to cause my ability to say something in a clear sentence to go WAY downhill.
Well, I see your point, but I take Dr. Goddard's description in the context of his post. He's making a deliberate point, and (having read several of his other posts) I think he was exaggerating for effect. A little hyperbole, not a literal description.
But I can see how you might be offended.
Still, I think the primary focus of the piece - today's acrimonious "divorce" between the Left and the Right after the separation brought on during the 60's - was spot-on, and that's why I recommend the piece.
I wouldn't really have described myself as "offended" in the first place, mostly because I tend to place, well, knee-jerk associations with the word. I didn't get really annoyed with the thing until I'd thought about it for awhile. ;)
I like the metaphor, and there are many excellent points within, but the fact that within it the only roles for women are mother, damsel-in-distress, or emasculating harridan rather weakens the whole thing for half the audience reading it. Exaggeration is good for rhetorical effect- up to a point. It's also really good for confirming your opponents' dimmest views about you.
Excerpt: No. I may have great disdain for Mr. Stein's attitude toward our troops, but I applaud him for honestly and forthrightly stating that which we know to be true of so many who are too cowardly to do the same.
Blog name: Captain of a Crew of One