“Feminism” is a meaningless propagandist word is totally devoid of meaning.
Think about it. What is a feminist?
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the most influential American feminists of the 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the very founders of First Wave Feminism, was once asked how women could avoid having children they didn’t want:
Stanton answered, “Woman’s perfect independence is the answer to the query. Woman must at all times be the sovereign of her own person.” A second woman asked, “What do we do when men don’t agree with us?” Stanton replied that men can be educated as to voluntary motherhood, that their passions can be controlled, and that women should stop stimulating men’s passions with dress, dance, and fashion with bare arms and bare necks. The Chronicle reported that “[o]ne lady asked a question which hinted at prevention by other than legitimate means.” The journalist wrote that “Mrs. Stanton promptly replied that such views of the matter were too degrading and disgusting to touch upon, and must be classified in the category of crime alongside infanticide.” Stanton’s solution was abstinence, which followed the core principles of the voluntary motherhood movement and its emphasis on women’s control of sexual relations.
Misappropriating Women’s History in the Law and Politics of Abortion, pg. 34
The first thing your attention may jump to the idea of preventing childbirths by “other than legitimate means,” which is a veiled reference to abortion. The second thing your attention may jump to is Stanton saying that abortion is degrading and disgusting and should be treated as a crime equal to murdering babies, infanticide. Stanton seems to clear place most of the control over childbearing in the stages of having sex, i.e. she suggested controlling sexual intercourse as a way to control having children and did not support elective abortion as a means of controlling whether you had children or not. This is not the slam dunk it may appear to pro-life advocates because the article has quotations form Stanton where she seems to imply her support for aborting children on eugenic grounds, i.e. as a way to prevent undesired genetic traits from spreading and as a way to supposedly perfect the human race through controlling who has children. This means that her position is, at best, one where abortions should be restricted except in cases of what she might have saw as eugenic necessity. Which is not to say that other prominent and influential First Wave feminist leaders didn’t oppose abortion totally. The article repeatedly mentions the famed poetess and abolitionist Julia Ward Howe as an example of such. (see pgs. 38-39)
Going back to the quote above there are some additional important issues worth recognizing. Stanton’s voluntary motherhood was the idea that women should not be compelled to be mothers against their will because they rightfully controlled their own bodies. And then Stanton suggested that if women wanted to have less children they should dress more modestly, dance more conservatively, and stop having sex strictly for pleasure.
To summarize: The position of one of the most radical First Wave feminists was that women shouldn’t wear revealing clothing, act in provocative ways, should practice abstinence, and that abortion should be heavily regulated as a crime equal to infanticide. Today we are told that if you oppose abortion in any form then you are not a feminist and if you championed the policies of some of the earliest and most important feminists then you are denounced as a “Right-wing/Conservative misogynist and bigot.” Take Dr. Monica J. Casper, a sociologist at the University of Arizona, for example:
Last Thursday, while driving my fifteen-year-old daughter to school, she asked, “Mom, why do men hate women?” …I struggled to find the right answer. As a scholar of gender, health, and reproduction, there were many ways I might have responded. But I could not say, “Men don’t hate women.” Because it’s not true. The twenty-five white Republican men who voted for the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, which would punish doctors who perform abortions with up to 99 years in prison, surely must hate women.
Anti-Abortion Misogyny: It’s Never About the Children
Can you explain the bizarre logic that preventing the murder of women in the womb is somehow woman hating? I cannot. There is no way a rational human being can believe that wanting more women to be safe from being slaughtered in the womb equates to woman hating. You cannot make insanity logical no matter how much you try. That’s what makes crazy people crazy. And we can see here how this woman has been indoctrinated into a woman-hating death cult that wants hundreds of thousands of little girls killed every year, but sees itself as “pro-woman,” rendering her incapable of logical thought and making her insane.
So, instead of trying to square the circle here, pay attention to the relationship this quote helps reveal between modern “feminism” and elective abortion. Contemporary feminists argue that if you want to limit or prevent elective abortions then you “hate women.” In other words, you can’t be a feminist if you want to save the lives of women from being destroyed when they’re at their most vulnerable just as some of the most important figures in feminism did in the past.
I can legitimately call myself a feminist because I have view that are extremely similar to or exactly the same as First Wave feminists. I think people should dress more modestly. I think people should abstain from promiscuous sex. I also understand that abortion is like infantcide because abortion murders an innocent child. But according to Dr. Casper above I’m the very opposite of a feminist. Likewise, Stanton would not be considered a feminist today and doubly so for Ward with her total rejection of abortion. They would be considered enemies of feminism and attacked as such by the very people today who use their names as propaganda for vastly different causes.
So, feminism as a word is meaningless. If a word can mean both a thing and its opposite then it is a meaningless word because it tells us nothing, communicates nothing, means nothing. It a word can be so successfully manipulated that those who founded the very movement the word describes would be jettisoned as being opposed to it today then the word has no meaning. It has merely become one more buzzword that can be used to manipulate the emotions and beliefs of people without actually communicating anything substantial or developing any meaning. Today no one is a feminist because feminism doesn’t mean anything. It is impossible to know who is a feminist because anyone and no one can be a feminist. That is exactly what makes the phrase such an excellent propaganda tool. It sounds good and has a good history, but is largely devoid of meaning which allows politicians and social manipulators to lie to and mislead the ignorant masses into causes that harm them and society, but which enrich and empower the politicians and manipulators.
The Destruction of Womanhood
For the contemporary people claiming to be feminists, that emptiness is the point. Their goal is to void the word feminist of all meaning so that it can mean whatever they want it to mean, even if those meanings contradict one another. It is the only way they can both claim to be feminists while actively working towards their true goal – to destroy the entire concept of women, females, and femininity altogether.
Their goal isn’t just to destroy the family, though that is part of getting to the goal:
There’s a wonderful theorist, Indiana Seresin, who very helpfully gave me the phrase “impossible concept” to describe how surrogacy functions in my book. If everything is surrogacy, the whole question of original or “natural” relationships falls by the wayside. In that sense, what surrogacy means is standing in for one another, caring for one another, making one another. It’s a word to describe the very actual but also utopian fact that we are the makers of one another, and we can learn to act like it. Full surrogacy in that sense is a demand for real surrogacy: a commune, a proliferation of relations rather than a continuation of a logic, Surrogacy™, that is about propping up the propertarian, biogenetic, nuclear private household that is our main kinship model.
It sounds scary, emotionally, when some people hear the phrase “family abolition.” But when we say we want to abolish the family, we’re not talking about taking away the few relationships and infrastructures of love that we have in this world. Of course the private household and the family are where so many of us get the vast majority of nourishment and solace. The question that family abolition is interested in is whether that’s good enough, whether that’s a good thing—that there is such a scarcity involved. We know that the nuclear private household is where the overwhelming majority of abuse can happen. And then there’s the whole question of what it is for: training us up to be workers, training us to be inhabitants of a binary-gendered and racially stratified system, training us not to be queer.
Want To Dismantle Capitalism? Abolish The Family
Notice what Sophie Lewis is saying. The family must be destroyed. All relationships should operate out of communes. There is no such thing as a mother or a natural right to your biological mother. Everyone are “gestators,” women are not mothers. The goal should be to destroy the biology based family and institute a non-binary, queer model where everyone and no one are caregivers because the family has been abolished forever.
Fatherhood? Motherhood? Brothers? Sisters? Husbands? Wives? All annihilated for feminism. This is what these insane people label “pro-woman.” Of course they portray themselves as the heroes and distort history (along with distorting science) in the service of that lie. But the goal is to destroy the feminine itself by destroying all attached to it.
An essential part of that goal is to destroy motherhood:
Emma Green: Why do you believe it’s important to shift our language around gender and pregnancy?
Louise Melling: First of all, if we’re talking about “pregnant people,” that language says to people—to transgender men and to nonbinary people—“we see you.” It should do a fair amount of work to help address discrimination. If we talk about “pregnant people,” it’s a reminder to all of us to catch ourselves when we’re sitting in the waiting room at the GYN that we’re not going to stare at the man who’s there. We’re not going to be disconcerted.
More importantly, we’re not going to behave in a way that makes that person uncomfortable—that signals discrimination and unwelcomeness to them. And that’s incredibly important when we think about the kinds of discrimination that continue to be pervasive against transgender people and nonbinary people.
It’s nothing short of heartbreaking to read about the experiences of transgender people seeking health care. If somebody is hostile to you, you’re not going to go back. So we have really serious consequences for transgender people—people who already are really in need of health care, who are often of lower income because of all the discrimination they face.
It is the reality that not only women seek abortions. It is not only women who are birthing. It is not only women who are seeking mammography and pap smears and other care. And recognizing that does real work.
The Culture War Over ‘Pregnant People’
By manipulating language they seek to destroy the ideas that language coalesces, defines, and communicates. You can’t actively (yet) prevent women from getting pregnant. Instead, you destroy the idea of women as female, as, “denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.” Destroy the idea that women are those who have children. When males have children then that which distinguishes male from female, man from woman, breaks down. And the very idea of female ceases to exist. The destruction of motherhood by the use of language to corrupt the concept into saying male humans can get pregnant too, is, therefore, an all out attack on the very idea of female itself. Feminism is dedicated to destroying females. And that is the actual goal.
The goal of feminism is to destroy women.
Their very language – the effort to erase the words “woman” and mother, replacing them with a physiological terms such as “menstruating/birthing person” – serves the express purpose of annihilating womanhood altogether. It objectifies women by reducing them to nothing more than their bodily functions. They don’t even believe that nature and reality exist. Objectivity doesn’t exist, only what you think you understand about reality exists. Therefore women don’t exist, only the idea of women and that idea can be altered at will. Which is how you make it psychologically possible to look at a man and say that he is a woman. These people are so divorced from reality that they can’t even agree about what a woman is or if women exist at all.
How are you supposed to have a discussion about the role and place of women, about feminism, with them in the first place?
How can they be pro-woman when their ideology, their religion, obliterates womanhood and women altogether?
Well, you can’t.
Which is how you get this:
I’m not a fan of Matt Walsh for a number of reasons. But this video perfectly illustrates the end outcome of contemporary “feminism” – a group of people who cannot even define what it means to be a woman which thereby allows anyone and anything, including men, to claim to be women.
In other words, contemporary feminism has so completely annihilated the very idea of women, of females, that it has made it impossible to even define woman or female. Which means contemporary feminism has produced a society where it is impossible to be a feminist because it is impossible to figure out who or what is feminine, who or what is a woman.
Feminism isn’t just anti-feminine, anti-female, anti-woman. Feminists actively hate women.
Feminists actively hate those who try to protect women from the insanity of feminism.
Feminists actively despise people who try to save the lives of little girls.
Feminism is actively trying to destroy women. We can no longer pretend anything else is true. We can no longer go along to get along with these people. For the sake of every woman, for every woman is in the crosshairs of this anti-woman and anti-human agenda, we must fight them tooth and nail for every single social, political, economic, and cultural inch. To do anything less would be to damn women specifically and society at large to an age of darkness and misery unrivaled in human history.