"Feminism" means so many different things that it
appears to mean very little. Its advocates constantly
contradict each other and themselves. In casting off
feminine reserve and modesty they seem to have
learned intellectual shamelessness as well.
It appears, however, that nothing can be called feminism
that is not radically antitraditional and
antinatural. What feminists call "gender" -- the system
of attitudes, expectations and customs that
distinguishes men from women -- has always and everywhere
been basic to human life. The detailed content of
that system has varied somewhat but general outlines have
been stable. The ties among a man, a woman, and their
children have always been fundamental, and dependent for
reliable functioning on a generally settled division of
responsibility among the parties and therefore
between the sexes. More specifically, all societies have
been patriarchal, with men mainly responsible for
public concerns and women for the care of small children and
domestic matters. Always and everywhere men have
predominated in positions of formal authority,
although exercising no general right of
domination.
The universality of these distinctions shows them to be
rooted in biology and other permanent conditions of
human life. Nonetheless, it is opposition to acceptance of
gender as a principle of social order -- to what is
called "sexism" -- that unifies the things called
"feminism." Feminist goals are thus not in the least
reformist. Feminism treats a fundamental principle of all
human societies, sex-role differentiation, as
essentially an arrangement by which some human beings
oppress others. Its aim is thus to create a new kind of
human being living in a new form of society based on
new ties among men, women and children, reconstituted in
accordance with abstract ideological demands.
For existing sexual and family ties, based on what seems
natural and customary, feminism would substitute
contractual relations, reliance on the state bureaucracy, or
some presently unknowable principle. Experience gives
no guidance for how to carry out the substitution, or indeed
any reason for supposing it can be done. Feminism is
therefore ideological and radical to the core; there
can be no commonsense feminism, because doing what comes
naturally gets a feminist nowhere. Whatever harsh
things can be said about anarchism and communism can be said
with yet more force about feminism, since the latter
seeks to eliminate something that touches us far more
deeply than private property or the state. Like the other
two ideologies, feminism can be presented as a lofty
ideal set up in opposition to a long history of dreadful
injustice, but its practical implementation,
especially by force of law, can only lead to catastrophe.
Like anarchism it calls for categorical opposition to
authority and hierarchy, and like communism for the
unending radical reconstruction of all aspects of life, and
consequently the absolute bureaucratization of
society. Both principles are thoroughly destructive; the
fact they utterly contradict each other does not help
matters.
It is not surprising that feminists, who misconstrue so
much, misconstrue the nature of the opposition to
them. Since their position requires a comprehensive and
minute system of ideological regimentation they
assume antifeminists must also be aspiring tyrants. They
thus recreate their opponents in their own
image.
In fact, to be antifeminist is simply to accept that men
and women differ and rely on each other to be
different, and to view the differences as among the things
constituting human life that should be reflected
where appropriate in social attitudes and institutions. By
feminist standards all societies have been thoroughly
sexist. It follows that to be antifeminist is only to
abandon the bigotry of a present-day ideology that
sees traditional relations between the sexes as simply a
matter of "domination" and "submission," and to accept
the validity of the ways in which human beings have
actually dealt with sex, children, family life and so on.
Antifeminism is thus nothing more than the rejection
of one of the narrow and destructive fantasies of a century
in which such fantasies have been responsible for
destruction and murder on an unprecedented scale. It is
opening oneself to the reality of things.
The acceptance of the legitimacy and usefulness of sex
roles is an exercise of ordinary good sense. What is
in itself good sense may be quite radical from the point of
view that is conventional in public at a particular
time and place. Such is the state of antifeminism today;
to reject feminist claims is to put oneself outside
what is said to be the mainstream.
The success of feminism has owed a great deal to the
astonishing absence of open opposition to it. That
absence has had a variety of causes, including masculine
cowardice, the difficulty of communication between
the sexes, the extreme centralization of public life and
discussion today, the power of the interests served
by the destruction of all social relationships other than
market and bureaucracy, the absolute triumph of
liberal ideology in our public and intellectual life,
and the difficulty that ideology has dealing with
issues relating to family life because of its tendency
to base human relations on either arm's-length bargaining
or force.
The consequence of the victory of feminism has been
disorder cascading from America throughout the world
and from the most immediate personal relationships to high
culture and international politics. Feminism has
meant suspicion and hostility where mutual reliance is
an absolute necessity. It has meant growing poverty
and brutality in daily life, resulting in particular
suffering for the weak. Its triumph has been part of the
triumph of State and Market over all other social
powers, the culmination of a trend that has been sweeping
all before it for centuries and has long since become
horrendously destructive. Feminism must therefore be opposed
as a destructive fanaticism based on a gross and
wilful misapprehension of human life.
In the end feminism cannot win because it makes stable
and productive ordering of private life impossible
for most people. It has done a great deal of damage,
however, and will do more before it disappears. The
more explicit, articulate and successful its opponents the
more damage can be prevented. The media, the
educational system, and even organized scholarship are
vehicles and beneficiaries of bureaucratization and are
therefore dominated by feminism. The Internet retains
its independence and holds out hope that free discussion and
resistance may still be possible and fruitful. Hence
this page.
|