February 21st, 2008
The feminist movement began as noble progression toward justice for women who were victims of unjust government practices and domestic violence. If that mission were all that it encompassed today, there would be little objection to the cause. Unfortunately, like many other social movements, the feminist movement has evolved to represent something much less credible: the death of objectivity. It is crucial that one understands this distinction; otherwise, critics of the new movement, such as myself, are simply victims of demagoguery and labeled “sexist.”
One goal of the feminist movement was to see that businesses implemented objective standards when hiring applicants; that potential candidates should be judged strictly on merit and achievements as opposed to gender. Now, the feminist movement stands for the complete opposite. The new goal is to curtail objectivity when hiring and accept women, even the ones who cannot qualify for certain positions, to be granted the job based solely on sex. What started out as a campaign against gender bias became a campaign for gender bias.
Who does this hurt? If a female candidate is awarded a job based solely on gender alone (and not merit), would this not hurt company production? Would resentful co-workers not regard such women as an ineffective asset to a firm? How is this helping the portrayal of women in business?
In one of the most popular cases of the new feminist agenda, the New York City Fire Department was sued by a woman who claimed that the physical examination to become a firefighter was too taxing for women. She won. The FDNY was forced to create new physical testing tailored toward women so that they may be allowed easier access to the profession. Here, the goal of feminists to kill objectivity is clear. They are not concerned that tests of that nature are specifically devised to make sure, for example, that one would have the ability of pulling a 200-pound man out of a building and down a ladder. To these feminists, the safety of citizens was second to gender representation.
Tammy Bruce, the radio talkshow host on 790 KABC, was the president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW (National Organization for Women). As president she stated that she collected money, held vigils and collected support for victims of domestic abuse. This was how she envisioned the purpose of the movement. As she left office, things started to change. Instead of giving aid and comfort to victims, the organization started to give aid and comfort to the perpetrator (given that the perpetrator was a female, of course).
Case in point: In 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub. As Yates herself recalled in interrogation, Noah, her eldest son of 7 years, and the only surviving child, walked into the bathroom and saw his 6-month old sister floating lifeless in the water. When he inquired about her well being Yates instructed Noah to get into the water. Noah tried to escape for his life and couldn’t. Yates admitted that as she drowned Noah, he asked, “Mommy, have I done something wrong?”
The honorable thing for a women’s organization to do would be to condemn these attacks and show objectivity toward the situation — this would gain credibility for their movement. They didn’t. Instead, because the murderer was a woman and it was a high-profile case, feminist organizations raised money for Yates’ defense and held candlelight vigils on her behalf.
It is not possible to have justice without objectivity, so by focusing on killing objectivity, the new feminist movement is, in turn, promoting the unjust.
Now, the feminism movement is not one of my most dire social grudges but it is an issue I would like to address before Dr. Mike Adams (University of North Carolina professor, columnist and author) speaks at the HAWC on Feb. 28. He has written a new book called “Feminists Say the Darndest Things,” which details the moral outrages and social absurdities of the feminist movement.
Adams’ take on the feminist movement is met with thoughtful insight mixed with amusing banter. With articles titled “Feminist Causes Outbreak of Genital Irritation” and “The Little Feminist Who Could” there is no doubt his speaking engagement will hold some pretty fiery discourse. But do not allow the message to be lost within the delivery.
Along with bringing humor to the issue he also makes note of some serious concerns. What has the feminist movement done to help women and girls in the Middle East, the obvious victims of abuse? What has the movement done to stop the exploitation of women around the world for sexual purposes? He points out that while the current feminists are devoting their time and money towards such things as the Vagina Monologues it is the Christians who are leading the charge against mass rape in Africa and fighting the global war on sex trafficking.
It will be interesting to see where the feminist movement goes from here. Will they once again value objectivity and combat the plight of women around the world, or will they choose to stay the course of promoting the unjust?
No comments:
Post a Comment