Sunday, 7 January 2018

Why Didn't Feminists Do It Like This?

A few days ago a visitor came to my site via a site called Masculine by Design, so I went and had a look. Sadly it hasn't had an update since February 2017, but many of it's 33 posts were of interest. The site owner included two graphs that I found particularly interesting.

The first is a timeline of a typical modern womens life. He calls it "Life in Reverse" and when you see the next graph that title makes sense.

Woman who live life in reverse

Here is the second graph, a timeline he called "Have It All"

How Woman can it all

Now here is the question, why didn't Feminists push the second timeline instead of the first?

The second timeline gives women a pathway to achieve everything that Feminists said women should have if they chose such a life. Actually most women do want a husband and children, whether they have a university education or a career. So why didn't they push this pathway?

Because it's doable, but not equitable. Feminism says that women are equal to men, or that women should be equal to men, it changes depending upon which is useful in any particular context. But giving women a doable timeline means that women are not the same as men. And as Feminism is a branch of Liberalism, Ideology is always more important than reality.

Also the first timeline makes women independent, women do not need to rely on men to support them or their children. Instead women are encouraged to be independent no matter what the cost. The more money a women makes the harder it is for her to find a mate as she still wants a man who is more successful than her. Feminists aren't worried about that, that doesn't matter, what matters is that she is independent. The very thing that will make her life harder is presented as something desirable.

Feminism isn't about improving the lives of women, it's only about improving the lives of Liberal women. Hence why it gives no choice to women except the Liberal one of being an independent women. Why don't they care about the price women have to pay?

Because they don't have to pay, you do!

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Conservatives Should Join the Army


  1. The notion of "independence" in feminism is quite limited. In the modern world, there are no independent people. We are all reliant on many social threads, and beholden to many institutions and customs, perhaps more so now than ever in history.

    An "independent" woman still has to
    1) Obey her manager/CEO
    2) Follow company Code of Conduct and other ethical guidelines, which these days more and more encroach upon peoples private life.
    3) Follow the many regulations and laws which govern our day to day lives.
    4) Operate within the strict limits that modern society allows.

    What is left is freedom to choose which Restaurant you eat at, which cubicle you'll trap yourself in and what to watch on Netflix, not to mention who you can swipe left and right to on Tinder.

    In important matters, there is little independence or freedom
    My wife may "rely" on my earning a wage, but functionally, this doesn't make her less independent. Provided the relationship is stable, it actually makes no difference to degrees of freedom.

    1. I totally agree, that is why the broad Left likes big Government. It must fulfill all of the functions that this so called "independence" has given.

      It is one of the bizarre aspects of Feminism, that a women serving customers is independence, but doing the exact same thing for her Husband is degrading and demeaning.

      Mark Moncrieff

  2. Grandma must raise the kids while the mother works. A must in the consumer materialistic society.