If A Woman Wrote This Column She'd Only Be Paid Seventy Cents To My Dollar!

Posted by Joshua White on 10.25.2006

The typical understanding of what a "feminist" is is based on a generalized stereotype. I'm tired of the ingnorance that is broadcast into our lives by those in the media who don't have a clue of what a real feminist thinks or wants. Stereotypes are not acceptable...unless you're talking about Mongolians!!


I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I was taught that making stereotypes and generalizations is not good. My father told me that not all black people are good at basketball, whites at hockey, or hispanics at soccer. Not all Jews are rich, Muslims are terrorists, and Christians are ridiculously evangelical.

When we move into the modern political sphere, the concept of stereotyping runs wild. On the left are a bunch of wussy, God hating, tax loving, abortion wanting fanatics. On the right are a bunch of warmongering, big business supporting, evangelical, evil kooks. All of them.

Nobody sees any problems with this. And this type of thinking gets even more drastic and ingrained into our minds when the groups are smaller, fight harder, and don't involve us. Obviously all Democrats don't love abortion. Even though we say that they do, most know that it isn't true. Just look at the black community. They are historically known for voting Democratic, but they are also known for being pro-life. And it is known that not all Republicans are against gay rights. To see this, just look at the Log Cabin Republicans.

As I listen to my right-winged radio shows, it seems apparent to me that they know that generalizations can only speak in general terms for the most part. But what isn't clear to them is that this way of thinking applies to feminists as well. When I listen to these shows (Rush and Savage) in general, they seem to have this view of all feminists. So, when they respond to certain things that the "feminists" are doing/saying/thinking/etc., they do so with this notion that all feminists think alike.

It is always the "feminist agenda" did this and the "feminist agenda" want that. Usually when these types of comments are made it is reference to abortion. It is always the feminists that are talking about abortion.

Now, you need to remember that for the small-minded, feminists are all one type and they all are pro-choice. But more than just being pro-choice, feminists want abortions. They don't just want the option to be available (perhaps because they feel that the woman's rights are more valuable than the fetus's); feminists actively want abortions. The more the merrier it seems. Evil, evil feminists.

This negative thinking towards feminists resonates with the comparison to Nazis (which inevitably always has to come up in a political discussion). Rush Limbaugh was the first to really spread the idea of "feminazis." Despite the fact that I'm almost positive that feminists and Nazi have very little in common, I can't in good conscience, just disregard Limbaugh's concept without first understanding it. So, let's see what he has to say:

I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. The term describes any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion.

A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren't necessary. Nothing matter [sic] but me, says the feminazi; the is an unviable tissue mass. Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness.

He has also said:

"Militant feminists are pro-choice because it's their ultimate avenue of power over men... It is their attempt to impose their will on the rest of society, particularly on men."

Ok, so a "feminazi" is one who:

1) is "intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism"
2) is "obsessed with... abortion"
3) "thinks that the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed"
4) beileves that "men aren't necessary"

Now, let me be clear here. I am attacking Limbaugh because I don't think that he distinguishes between feminists and "feminazis." He doesn't see a difference because he thinks that all feminists belong to N.O.W., don't shave their armpits, and hate men. But there are two problems with Limbaugh's view here (as well as anyone's view who agrees with him).

The first problem is that the type of women that Limbaugh is describing don't exist. Honestly, do you know anyone, and I do mean anyone, who actually wants more abortions performed. I can't think of a person who actually wants abortions performed. Sure, they don't want the process to be outlawed, and they don't think that they're immoral, but nobody thinks that someone should get pregnant just to have an abortion. Abortions are the last option. There is not a single, pro-choice or not, that wants more abortions performed just because s/he wants the numbers up. S/he may want more performed in the sense that some women previously didn't have the option, and if they did more abortions would have been performed. But nobody wants more abortions for the sake of more abortions.

Further, while there is some evidence that men might not be necessary in the future, right now, no woman wants all men to become non-existent. Even the most unreasonable feminist understand that men are needed (at least for now). There are just no "feminazis", if this is how Rush is going to define them.

Second, it seems to be that the "feminazis" and "el Rushbo" seem to have much in common. I would claim that Rush and his rivals have at least three of the four components in common. If Rush were to read the article which I linked you all to, then he, too, would agree (or at least reconsider) that men are not necessary. Also, if you replace "militant feminism" with 'conservatism" I think that both Rush and the "feminazis" agree on point 1. Rush is intolerant to any point of view except for conservatism. You think that he'd be open to changing his point of view on "tax and spend"? Nope. Me either. Finally, I think that Rush is "obsessed" with abortion as well. He isn't obsessed in the sense that he wants more. But when the abortion debate heats up, Rush can talk about it for hours a day. He'll talk about the morality of it, the legal aspects, the sociological aspects, and cultural aspects. To me that sounds like obsession.

As far as I'm concerned, Rush and the "feminazis" share three of the attributes of "feminazi." And since I don't think that there is anyone who fulfills number 3, it looks like they both share all three qualities.
.
And aren't all politicians trying to exert their authority over others. Politicians, by definition, make laws. They look to control others too. But the idea is that they do it for the betterment of the country (whether or not we agree). That is all that the feminists are trying to do. Is that so terrible? Is that evil? Is that crazy?

My point with all of this is that not all feminists are the same. They certainly share a common goal: deciding why, or by what process, women have been subjected to a lower-class status and then deciding how to change this. This influences a lot of our lives (even though we don't think about it). Why should women shave their arms and legs? Why is that considered sexy? Why does being an assertive man make you powerful, but being an assertive woman make you a "bitch"? These are simply some of the easier sociological questions. But they can become much more difficult when you start trying to figure out how the use of our language is misogynistic. When you study this questions, you very quickly learn that our society is brainwashed by anti-feminist ways of thinking. This is one reason why the objections of a real feminist are sometimes difficult to hear. But one thing is clear, not all feminists are the same. And virtually none are "feminazis."

There are feminists that vote Democrat, Conservative, or Libertarian. There are pro-choice feminists, and there are those who are pro-life. There are those who think that men and women are inherently, biologically different and those that think that we're forced into these gender roles. To put all of these people (not just women) into one mold is ignorant.

Look, of course there is a "feminist agenda." So what? There is a conservative agenda, Christian agenda, and NRA agenda. Why is the agenda that the feminists have so worrisome? Because they want to "demasculinize" men? If this is something that really bothers you, why? What would be so bad about men being more "feminine"? What would be so terrible about men showing more feelings and not being so ready to kill? What would be so wrong about women being more "masculine"? Wanting to serve their country, or their police force in some capacity? I think nothing. (Though I will say this: that we have "masculine" and "feminine" words might, in and of itself, indicate a problem with our thinking about women.) And as I said earlier, true feminists are doing it for the betterment of our society.

Keep all of this in mind when any of your favorite little pundits dismiss feminism as some crazy little "girl power" movement out to stir up trouble. The feminist movement is a legitimate attempt to change our country for the better. Sure there are differing views, but the overall goal is a noble one.

Unless of course I'm wrong about all of this. Am I? You write me and tell me.


I would feel very weird having a "pimping" section in this column... so, here are my "plugs":

Haven't yet had enough of me? Then I suggest you read this week's Fact or Fiction. I destroy the reader for two questions, but he, in his own best interest, agrees with me for the other two questions. But, even after I've read the column twice, I still don't know how Easley rhymed "Steve Lucas" with "Hosh Lite"...but he does.

Though our weekly dose of Crowcaine is a little redundant, it is a pretty effective piece. And I love me that title...eviler! HA!

Mr. Radulich, I will not be told what to do. Anyways, I do everything with fear.

In his most recent column, Joe plays Captain Obvious with his title.


Finally, since I hve been part of this site, I have revolutionized how the site is run. But so that I do not grow stale, I would like to add a new feature: the "you chose, I use" feature. Every once in a while I'll offer you, my followers, the opportunity to suggest what I write about. If you are picked, not only will I write about your subject with all the brilliance of my normal column, but your name will be published here, and you'll garner fame the likes of which you've never fathomed. If you have a suggestion, please write me. Tell me what you'd like me to talk about, your opinion on the subject, and why you're interested in the topic. (Or just tell me what to do.)

Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.