Turned for the worse

It’s the wrong focus, the wrong enemy and the wrong fight.

By Julien J. Metzmeyer, Opinion Editor

Feminism might’ve had some respectability at some point, but nowadays feminists believe that females should lead and be more dominant in work, life, etc. than men. It glorifies a womanly essence over claims to equality with men. But they forget that feminism is just a smokescreen, a distraction from the real fight…between the working class and the bourgeoisie.

Elisabeth Badinter wrote in her book “Wrong route,” “The current feminism is monolithic, essentialist and anti-men. Influenced by some radical theorists, it victimizes women, demonizes male sexuality and has managed to impose a new moral order.”

This is indeed the wrong route; it is misleading us from the real problem and the difference of ambition between a woman from the working class and the bourgeoisie.

In the working class, the emancipation, is escaping production constraint and the wage system to become a provided-for woman or housewife, which is a luxury, and so one ambition for working class women is to escape the worker’s obligation to produce, whereas for the bourgeoisie it’s escaping boredom. The bourgeoisie housewife’s boredom to attain a more interesting social life, and interesting professions, which means, that there is an opposition in terms of class between the bourgeoisie woman’s ambitions, in terms of emancipation, and the working class woman’s ambition.

So this matches the liberal bourgeois woman’s ideas. What we forget is that behind the liberated feminist woman there’s another one who has a dual alienation, which is the maid for instance, or the babysitter who takes care of the feminist’s children and of her own children. So in reality women’s emancipation often happens at the expense of other women who are doubly alienated.

According to Marxists.org, “While for the feminists the achievement of equal rights with men in the framework of the contemporary capitalist world represents a sufficiently concrete end in itself, equal rights at the present time are, for the proletarian women, only a means of advancing the struggle against the economic slavery of the working class.”

For a working class women, this isn’t a free choice, it’s a matter of social class, and often ends up at least in the working class, with the “double shift” because really today, the “right” to work is a scam.

According to ‘Women, Work and Family’ by Louise A. Tilly, “In working class families, married women ought to earn wages if necessary. Life is precarious enough that necessity might call at any time. Yet, even among stable and prosperous families, married women occasionally entered the labor market, not to ensure subsistence; but in order to supplement their family’s income; not from necessity, but by choice, the fact that they have a choice makes all the difference, for them their work is not a sign of family hard times.”

It’s an obligation to work, almost no couples today can get by on just one salary, in the working class. So a woman who stops working is a luxury today in the working class.

According to Forbes.com, 84% of working women told Forbes Woman and The Bump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to. So what feminism considers a fruit of their struggle, the “right” to work for wages, is actually an obligation, and it’s also what consumer society wants since with its ever-expanding markets, it has an interest in expanding wages and buying power, the capacity to consume.

According to Martha Barletta, author of Marketing to Women, women are the primary decision-makers for consumer goods in 85% of households. They make 75% of decisions about buying new homes, and make 81% of the decisions about groceries. They influence at least 80% of all household spending.

So in reality what feminists consider the fruit of their struggle was the hidden will of consumer society, to put women on the market for wages and consumption, that’s why feminists, in hindsight, reveal themselves as being the useful idiots of mercantilism and consumer society, and generalized wage work.

Marguerite Yourcenar herself mocked feminists because she sees the catch-22, “Women of superior intelligence, who are aware of their being and who fight for their freedom, have always renounced the lies, the naivety, the stupidity of the strictly feminist struggle.”

The famous French feminist Mrs Halimi admitted herself that she did it all to annoy her father and that it’s basically a bourgeois oedipal affair and often feminism is just an oedipal and bourgeois settling of scores…in the end it’s petty, mean, and dishonest.

One comment

  1. Wow. Where
    to begin…First, SHAME ON YOU- whomever approved the publication of this
    tortuous patching together of disparate quotes, some contextually libelous,
    into a sexist rant which describes feminism as “just an oedipal and bourgeois
    settling of scores” and alleges that a leading feminine member of the French
    National Assembly; founded a noteworthy feminist organization and became a
    lawyer to “annoy her father and that it’s basically a bourgeois oedipal affair.”In other words, according to this nincompoop—her
    lifes’ work toward gender equality has been a ruse through which she has really
    been teasing her upper middle class father, with whom she lusts after and at
    the same time hates her mother whom she sees as a sexual rival. Yeah, that’s
    why I went to law school too! I’m reminded of the wise words of Mark Twain:
    “It is better to keep
    your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and
    remove all doubt.”

Your thoughts?