Gender wars and better feminism
The Western world - both men and women - are finding themselves in the midst of two misconceived movements. One is done in the name of women; the other is done in the name of men. Both movements have had a destructive effect on humanity; and the rightful stance is opposing both while striving toward outcomes superior to the goals of each.
I opposed political correctness, and did much intellectual heavy lifting in fighting political correctness, not so that brutality be way of life, but so that passion, love, beauty and freedom be way of life. I fought political correctness for its abuses against love and beauty - abuses especially against those who possessed beauty and those who longed for love. I fought political correctness because it was a betrayal of the glorious liberal romantic tradition that in the West had given birth to women's rights in the first place - because it militated against women's best qualities - because it turned women who bought into it into monsters and harpies while directing them to maliciously abuse those women who had enough sense and principle to hold on, in whatever possible form, to their beauty both outside and within.
It is for this reason that I am directing the same scrutiny to the so-called men's rights, or fathers' rights, movement. While political correctness was the biggest obstacle to beauty and love in 1990s, it is this movement that is the biggest obstacle to beauty and love in present day. Ugly misogynistic beliefs, blatant slanders, demands that women put up with whatever men do to them, and calls for gender apartheid are not an improvement upon political correctness; they are another form of vileness. When made to choose between Evil A and Evil B, the correct choice to make is: Neither of the preceding. Whether one is a horrible harpy who hates men and beautiful women and does everything in one's power to destroy both, or a wife-beating creep who hates women and wants them to put up with whatever ugliness he dishes out to them and their children, neither is proper figure toward which to aspire, and neither is proper leader of 50% of humanity - or of humanity proper, as some of these figures aspire to be.
In both cases, we see movements rooted in ugliness and aiming to make that ugliness binding on all of humanity. And it is time that humanity, both women and men, say to both parties: We deserve better than either of you. Not Glenn Sacks, not Michael Murphy, not Barry Williams, not Andrea Dworkin, not Catherine McKinnon, are anything close to worthy leaders for 50% of humanity. The more men and women reject both sets of usurpers, the better will be relationships between men and women, and the better will be the character of men and women themselves.
The solution is this: To find, in the midst of this, the courage to love. The solution is this: To find the strength to oppose oppression and fascism, whether it be done in the name of women or in the name of men. The solution is this: To understand the true meaning of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and stand by this truth in the face of any person or any group that seeks to take it away.
No, man doesn't owe anything to his gender and certainly not to the Fathers' Movement; man owes to contributors to and benefactors of humanity, of whom as many are female as are male, and of whose male contributors the greatest were socially progressive and detested violence against women. No, woman doesn't owe anything to Andrea Dworkin or Catherine McKinnon; these were as destructive to women as they were to men. Neither of these groups is worthy to speak for 50% of humanity, and neither of these groups is worthy to dictate to 50% of humanity. Both groups are usurpatory scoundrels seeking totalitarian power over free people, and both deserve to be seen and treated as such.
There is a good reason why 1990s feminists were regarded as femi-Nazis: They sought a holocaust against a section of humanity (people labeled as "sociopaths") and an imposition of de facto totalitarianism against everyone else. The Fathers' Movement is likewise deeply Nazi-like. In their appeal to imaginary past 19th century greatness when the greatness of the countries in which it operates was achieved in the Progressive Era of early 20th century - to "tradition" in countries that were never meant to be traditional but rather places where people could go to be free of tradition and live genuinely free lives - in using these appeals to persecute feminists, liberals, minority religions, single mothers, and people living alternative lifestyles, by way of forcing everyone to live the same lifestyle - the Fathers' Movement mirrors precisely the central claims and tactics of Adolf Hitler. The correct response to both of these groups is therefore to see their purpose for what it is and then to steadfastly and passionately defend freedom - one's own and that of the next person - from both of these totalitarian threats.
Is there a need for protection of women's rights, both outside the home and inside the home? As can be seen from the intentions and actions of the Fathers' Movement and men influenced by the Fathers' Movement, there is not only a need for it but a growing need for it. But it has to be a better movement than feminism was the last time that it was in the lead. It is not right to prosecute love and beauty; to sabotage beautiful women's lives and relationships; to abuse young males in liberal cultures who are fundamentally sympathetic to women's empowerment while doing nothing to men in conservative cultures who are categorically against women's empowerment at all levels and doing nothing for women who have to share their lives with the same. A better feminism is required that recognizes the woman's right to be feminine and the woman's right to love and be loved, and supports women in their natural aspect as much as it affirms, cultivates and respects their intellectual and volitional aspect and strives for maximization of its contribution to economics, politics, science, and society at all levels.
Men and women are different in their physical nature, but similar in their common human identity as beings of intellect and volition. The latter, being equal between men and women, demands equality for women in society. The former demands affirmation of both woman's and man's gendered, physical nature, and an opportunity for the same to come together in relationships to produce and sustain new life. It is wrong to deny the physical aspect as being degrading or incompatible with equality; both the natural and the volitional aspects are there in both women and men and are inextricable aspects of being human. And for women to actually live complete lives, they deserve to have the right to cultivate and strive for the fulfilment of both aspects while having the right to contribute and be rewarded for what they have to offer in both respects.
Feminism must move away from its abusive stance toward women's physical nature and toward an affirmation of both women's physical nature as women and of their nature as beings possessive of will and intellect - the general human nature which they share with men. Woman should not have to choose between love and dignity; between being a parent and having a career; between having a life at a home and having a life outside the home. For as long as there are men in the world who would abuse women either in home or outside the home, there will be a need to stand up to such men, so there is a need for feminism. But it has to be a more informed feminism than what we have seen - one that is affirming of the totality of what is woman and that as such strives intelligently toward its fruition.