A Feminist Manifesto for the 21st Century

[YawataNoKami]

http://www.counterfire.org/articles/78-womens-liberation/3901-feminism-a-21st-century-manifesto

1 Globalisation and neoliberalism have had a profound effect on the lives of millions of women. Capitalism itself has created new forms and manifestations of women’s oppression.

2 Women’s oppression is a product of class society which has existed for thousands of years. It was only with the development of capitalism that large numbers of women developed a consciousness of their position and the ability to do something about it.

3 Women have been drawn into the workforce in millions but working in factories, offices and shops has not led to an improvement in women’s lives far less to liberation. Women suffer exploitation at work as well as still shouldering the double burden of family and childcare as well as paid work.

4 Women’s traditional role as wives and mothers has not disappeared but has been reinvented to fit in with the needs of exploitation. They are now expected to juggle all aspects of their lives and are blamed as individuals for any failings in family or work life.

5 The talk of glass ceilings and unfairly low bonuses for women bankers miss the point about liberation, which is that liberation has to be for all working women and not just a tiny number of privileged women.

6 Although all women suffer oppression and face discrimination, their life experiences are radically different. Women are not united as a sex but are divided on the basis of class. Middle and upper class women share in the profits from the exploitative system in which we live and use this benefit to alleviate their own oppression. Working class women are usually the people who cook, clean and provide personal services for these women, receiving low wages and often neglecting their own families to do so.

7 Women are more than ever regarded as objects defined by their sexuality. The commercialisation of sexuality with its lad and ladette culture, its pole dancing clubs and its post-modern Miss World contests keeps women being judged as sex objects as if nothing has changed since the 1950s.

8 This objectification, alongside women’s role as supposedly the property of men, leads to domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse. This abuse is under recognised and under reported. It was only in the 1960s and 70s that these issues began to be viewed as political.

9 To control their own lives, women must control their own bodies and sexuality.

10 Capitalist ideology prioritises the family and the subordinate role of women and children within it, while at the same time forcing individual members of the family to sacrifice ‘family life’ because of the pressures of work and migration.

11 The priorities of the profit system and the existence of the privatised family means that women’s oppression is structured into capitalism. Any genuine liberation has to be connected to a wider movement for human emancipation and for working people to control the wealth that they produce. That’s why women and men have to fight for liberation. Socialism and women’s liberation are inextricably connected.

12 We will not win without a fight. Every great social movement raises the question of women. In the 19th century the movement for women’s emancipation took its name from the movement to abolish slavery. In the 20th century women’s liberation took its name from the movements against colonialism around the world. 21st century women’s liberation has to fight to change the world and to end the class society which created oppression and exploitation in the first place.

Feminism in 21st century is the same as feminism before.

Its women whining and nagging men about being women until men give them some free ****, which is interpreted as empowerment.

I think that socialism is simply a term women use to rationalize their groupthink and their herd mentality. Just take a look at female dominated societies or pocket societies. Its always socialistic, to varying degrees for the female mind is inherently socialistic in the same way the female mind is inherently hypergamous.


Women don't seem to take pride in their achievements or hard work. They flaunt it sure, because they think it brings them a higher SMV when in fact it doesn't. When was the last time you've seen women as a group go out and accomplish something just for the sake of doing it. Like the equivalent of restoring an old car, writing open source software, or whatever you could call a "hobby". Hobbies to them are shopping and watching **** on TV.

 

[LiveFreeX]

Not to worry, most feminists' genetic lines will be drying up shortly. The yellow menace is on their way and they don't make concessions for welfare weaklings.

 

[Tictac]

Change the word 'women' to men in the original diatribe.

Can you imagine ever saying, thinking and believing words like this?

 

[Rave18]

My Choice, a VogueEmpower [India] film.

/> Feminism on Trial!

 

[dasein]

Makes CRYSTAL, CRYSTAL, CRYSTAL clear that feminism has NEVER been about "equality for women" but about Marxist-socialist techniques of societal upheaval and overthrow. That anyone could claim or believe otherwise in light of the clear, stated evidence in manifestos such as this is beyond incredible.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Makes CRYSTAL, CRYSTAL, CRYSTAL clear that feminism has NEVER been about "equality for women" but about Marxist-socialist techniques of societal upheaval and overthrow.

I believe the same thing holds true for civil "rights" activism. Both groups think and talk the same. The so-called civil rights movement was never really about "equality for blacks and people of color " but about marxist-socialist techniques of societal upheaval and overthrow. Also feminism is sexism and civil rights activism is racism.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Well for starters marxism didn't even exist yet for about another 100 years in the time of Washington and Jefferson. A revolution against a foreign country colonist left and that was supported or at least not opposed by about 80% of the colonist is not the same thing as a domestic movement by activist associated with communist and forced down the throats of Americans by federal judges and politicians.

Comparing the revolution and people who truly risked life, limb and everything to all the BS done in the 1960s is about the most radical idea I think I ever heard.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Completely dodged the point...many of the same civil rights at stake in 1960 were at stake in 1776...

No my point was that civil rights activist didn't and don't really want "equality" just like feminist don't really want equality. I don't see the feminist rights at stake in 1960 the same as 1776 either.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The authors' arguments about not needing a man are certainly bolstered by their level of attractiveness. Obviously, women this hot can have any man they want, so their rejection of men is highly credible:

http://arbetet.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/IMG_0135_1236.jpg
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/images/wwimages/1003868.jpg

 

[Stagger Lee]

I won't argue whether Taney supreme court had an extreme or wrong view of the Constitution's intent but that was before 1864. Up through 1960 besides the Civil war there was the Civil rights acts of 1866, 1870, 1957, 1960, the 1865 13th (abolished slavery) 1868 14th (citizenship) and 1870 15th (voting) amendments, Supreme court decisions that were as opposite of the Taney court as could be, etc. And then still we got the 1964 and onward BS. It's the 1960's and onward actions that I'm objecting too that are on even much shakier constitution grounds than Taney.

The 1964 civil rights act, '65 immigration act, the '65 voting act (finally ruled unconstitutional the past year or so) and the misuse of the 14th amendment are all intertwined, and the real motivation and goals of the 1960's onward civil rights activism is clear.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Then wouldn't you know Ron Paul explained his opposition to the '64 Civil Rights Act. Isn't he a libertarian?
civil-rights-act

However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society...