Zero-Sum Feminism

Conservative gadfly Milo Yiannopoulos, never averse to sharing his views, had a fun exchange in late 2016 with ABC News reporter Terry Moran. Nestled in among Milo’s trademark bluntness and take-downs of politically correct themes was a very astute observation on the state of modern feminism:

I would rather a healthier equitable arrangement that existed between the sexes rather than the sort of vindictive feminism that seems to exist now. And by the way, most people agree with me. Fewer than one in five women in America describe themselves as a feminist, because they see what I see.

I’ve written in the past about how, as a movement achieves its initial goals, the moderates in the movement tend to lose their fervor and either go back to their regular lives or move on to other issues. This gives greater power and a louder voice to the fringes. Popular movements spawn substantial organizations, and those organizations tend to persist past the point of achieving their initial goals. In time, the once-fringe voices end up running those organizations. In the case of feminism, and tendentious or ignorant arguments about wage gaps aside, most of the movement’s original goals have generally been realized, at least in spirit.

The feminist movement today bears little resemblance to the original pursuit of liberation and equal rights that the movement focused on in the early part of the 20th century, and again in the 1960s and 1970s. These eras, commonly referred to as “first-wave” and “second-wave” feminism, are ably demarcated by writer Camille Paglia:

Second-wave feminism went off the track when it started to demonize men and blame them for all the evils in human history. It’s a neurotic world-view that was formulated in too many cases by women (including Gloria Steinem and Kate Millett) with troubled childhoods in unstable homes. First-wave feminism, in contrast, focused on systemic social problems that kept women in secondary or dependent status.

Then there’s third-wave feminism, which emerged in the 1990s and turned its focus to race and sexuality. This “mission-drift” suggests that feminism’s initial goals must have been sufficiently achieved. Why else move the goalposts in a way that might introduce divisiveness and internecine fights for supremacy? Why introduce second-tier discriminators, unless the first tier (women as a whole) have achieved close-enough equality?

Now, some assert that a fourth-wave is emerging, which brings into the fray the concept of “intersectionality,” i.e. the idea that oppression is multi-layered and must be considered in toto:

They speak in terms of intersectionality whereby women’s suppression can only fully be understood in a context of the marginalization of other groups and genders—feminism is part of a larger consciousness of oppression along with racism, ageism, classism, abelism, and sexual orientation (no “ism” to go with that).

These new waves, beyond their divergence from “women’s rights” to the rights of some women, are presented as zero-sum, as if women’s rights can only be advanced by subordinating men and using government to forcibly impose new rule sets that advance one group by suppressing another.

Today’s feminism mirrors the mutation of many other social movements, movements that achieved sufficient success over previous decades to satisfy the reasonable. This is a shame, because the original missions and intents were worthy and should continue to have champions, defenders, and monitors. No rational person will argue that sexism or racism no longer exist, but it is rational to take issue with the militance and the divisive, zero-sum we can only get ahead by stepping on others mindset of the current incarnations of social movements.

Today’s National Organization for Women has degraded into a single-issue entity: unrestricted abortion on demand, paid for by others (especially those others who oppose abortion). Today’s feminism seems more interested in venting anger at “oppressors” and portraying women as perpetual victims than in championing a level, gender-blind playing field.

When things aren’t nearly as bad as fanatics claim, normal people are more likely to be deterred than persuaded by extreme positions, assertions and demands. That doesn’t, unfortunately, bother fanatics. For them, the effort is the thing, and the divisiveness and agitation is more important than achieving the original goals.

Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim. — George Santayana

While a few kooks can be dismissed (there will always be kooks), there lies much peril in the corruption of the once-noble feminist movement. The good name will draw young people, but the lessons will warp their lives and, ironically, lead them away from equality and liberation. As Paglia observed:

What I am saying throughout my work is that girls who are indoctrinated to see men not as equals but as oppressors and rapists are condemned to remain in a permanently juvenile condition for life.