Christina Hoff Sommers is an unconventional feminist scholar. She attacks what she calls the unscientific and indefensible “gender feminism” currently in fashion.
Sommers describes equity feminism as an ideology rooted in classical liberalism that aims for full civil and legal equality for women. Experimental psychologist Steven Pinker expands on Sommers to write, “Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology.
In contrast to equity feminism, Sommers coined the term “Gender feminism” to describe what she contends is a gynocentric branch of feminism. Gender feminists typically criticize contemporary gender roles and aim to eliminate them altogether.
Sommers argues that gender feminism characterizes most of the body of modern feminist theory, and is the prevailing ideology in academia. She argues that while the feminists she designates as gender feminists advocate preferential treatment and portray “all women as victims”, equity feminism provides a viable alternative form of feminism to those who object to elements of gender feminist ideology.
Steven Pinker, in his book The Blank Slate, devotes a whole chapter to discussion of how Gender Feminism, to further its agenda, ignores innate differences between men and women.
I believe he is mistaken in most of his writing in this chapter. For example, he commits the liberal feminist fallacy:
I am a feminist. I believe that women have been oppressed, discriminated against, and harassed for thousands of years.
He conveniently ignores that millions of men died defending these “oppressed” women in all the battles and wars through history. Just because women and men had certain roles does not mean that one group was “oppressing” the other.
The only thing sensible in this chapter of his book is his re-iteration of Sommers’ classification of the two forms of feminism. But that is not his original work.
Sommers correctly states that most sensible people have no problem with giving women equal rights. It is the gender-feminism, and its consequence, which are troublesome. It is the preferential and special treatment of women (“if she says rape, it must be so.”) that galls a hard-working upstanding man who expects to be treated equally and fairly.
No man would argue that if a woman wants to work, she should be stopped from doing so. But to have policies in place which “encourage” women to leave their kids and families to slave in factories and offices, and ignoring the rampant under-education and unemployment of men, is another matter altogether.
There is a fringe in the manosphere which thinks it was a mistake to allow women to vote. We are not too sure of that yet. The complication is that women vote for women’s preferential treatment (since it benefits them), and beta or white-knight men vote for women’s preferential treatment as well. No one wants to be seen as being against special treatment of women. Also, gender feminists have captured academia, and continue to put pressure on more and more laws favoring women.
Hence, the result of women having a vote is that pretty soon, there are massive institutional disparities in the treatment of men and women, and that hurts unwitting men who have to follow the writ of the land.
So, while the white-knighting instinct is in place, and while gender-feminism continues with its toxic agenda, universal suffrage has unintended, and harmful consequences.
Down with Gender-Feminism!