Often, when reading feminist spaces, they are simply depressing. Women are hopelessly held back, unable to progress or achieve anything, by a system of oppression called patriachy. Misogyny, with men hating women, means they are unable to ever achieve anything.
For men it's so much easier to achieve they have all of the benefits and none of the disadvantages. The world of feminism has elaborate theories and data to back this up. Women do the majority of housework (incorrect), women are paid less (incorrect) and a host of other excuses.
The thing is, let's be honest. Being successful is super, super difficult. It takes hard work, dedication, skill, talent, ability, charm, ruthlesness, drive. It's exceptionally rare in the majority of people. Unfortunately 90% of the population can't be the top 10% in terms of success. The numbers can NEVER work out.
When women fail they have a whole industry there to explain it. It was the patriachy again, or the gender pay gap, or the fact your husband was a man child who didn't help or support you, or the fact you were simply seen as a bang maid or whatever excuse you would like to use.
Who is manufacturing these excuses ? Who are the distinguished people who are doing this research ? Finding these monsterous inequalities ? It may not suprise you to find out that it's academics. University researchers whose only real experience is, well, in a university.
Gail Dines is a prominent radical feminist who campaigns against pornography. She has written many books and researched the area extensively.
Yet looking through her history she really has never achieved anything outside of academia. She met her husband at the University of Salford and were both
socalists. She abandoned her orthodox Jewish upbringing and embraced Marxist communist before dedicating herself to radical feminism.
Let that sink in. She dedicated herself to an ideology, Marxism, that was responsible for millions of deaths of people around the world from Stalin to Pol Pot.
To be clear though, outside of writing books, and being an academic her experience of life is relatively light. She has had few jobs, she's not raised capital, she's not built companies to deliver products and services. She has been a professional academic. This is somebody who is teaching young women coming into the world and the workplace. Somebody who has had near zero experience of the workplace herself discussing how patriachy holds women back.
Another prominent feminist,
Allan G Johnson, was also an academic. He earnt his degree, and PHD, both in sociology. After that he worked at the University of Wesleyan in.... sociology.
To say his life experience is limited is a total understatement. Again, he's never really worked in the real world. He's teaching young women about how patriachy holds them back, about misogyny having never really had a job outside of sociology, in his life.
He's never had to worry about feeding his children or how he was going to pay the next month's mortgage bill. He is simply an academic who went to university, studied sociology and then never left.
Ultimately the feminists that most young women are listening to have got nearly zero life experience. They've lived cushy lives, comfortable lives, in academic institutes where they've never really had to worry about pay cheques, redundancies or paying their bills. They've never achived anything in industry, they've never built companies, they've just lived soft, comfortable lives in the burbs.
How on Earth they can say patriachy holds anybody back when they have done nothing but live in, what most people would consider, luxury is beyond me.
Comments
Post a Comment