April 08, 2015

Why I am not a feminist

Lauren SouthernRebel Commentator

Did you know that every year, more American men are raped than women?

Did you know that 80% of suicides are male?

Men account for almost half the number of victims of domestic violence, yet there are no safe houses or other programs set up to help them.

If feminism really is a movement dedicated to equality, shouldn't feminists be speaking out against these and other example of obvious inequality?

That they don't proves that feminism isn't about equality at all.

But if you don’t swallow the feminist narrative, you will be ridiculed.

I have experienced this treatment first hand for speaking my mind on these issues, so I made this video to explain to feminists why I am still not a feminist.

Tell us what you think in the comments!


JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-04-10 18:07:41 -0400
You’re still wrong about what feminism is! Feminism is gaining back the rights we had lost through oppression. It’s equality for everyone. Women and mens bodies being respected equally and represented equally in media and advertisements. Why are there naked women in every show for no reason. Every movie. Everywhere. Feminism is a movement for men to treat women appropriately rather than condescending or with entitlement (yea I’ll talk to you and check out the girl walking by). You can be a feminist and still believe in other causes! I believe in rights for animals and human lives across the world. The feminist movement grew from the civil rights movement, equality is a large umbrella with many causes under it. And mind you, the vicious acts done in public are a matter of public safety. No one deserves violence but our country almost treats what happens in prison as a punishment. In prison it’s again men treating men wrongly (in your scenario) because of entitlement over another man for whatever reason. The entitlement in public leads to rape (where women are not believed), oppression, harassment, condescending attitudes towards women, a sense that girls are grown up learning from society, media, and everything fed to us on a daily basis (you cannot avoid society no matter how hard you try) what matters most is what they look like and not how intelligent they are. I’m happy if you haven’t faced these injustices but most women have and we’re taught to shut up and accept it. Acknowledging an injustice isn’t ignoring the rest of injustices. In fact the study of sociology suggest that one form of oppression is denying an injustice because other injustices exist. Basically saying “this cause doesn’t matter because this other cause happens”. In other words, exactly what you’re doing.
commented 2016-03-07 14:15:31 -0500
That’s the woman ! bottom line no human being is equal to another, we’re all different.

and Judy, the critic …..why don’t you enroll and present your opinion on the gender equality at TheRebel , for one in my province shelter for men are far and few , but I know lots of men that lived in their cars after a divorce. Our society have turn into a matriarchal one that is my opinion, if you think women deserve more well good for you.
commented 2015-12-17 22:06:06 -0500
Well said Lauren! I agree Men and women should be equal and in my opinion they are! Sorry to me feminists are just whiny people whom feel sorry for themselves and like to blame everyone else for their misfortune … basically crybaby activists . Basically i could not give a damn about feminists period they make me wanna hurl ;just like all the other whiny doo gooders . Lauren you are in my estimation more than the equal to any man I know; due to your articulate speech, vast intelligence ,pursuit of the truth, and belief in equality . Keep up the excellent commentaries ! And to be politically incorrect fuck Feminism and any other Ism they all make me sick lol
commented 2015-06-29 18:36:31 -0400
Just wanted to put in corrections to one point made here (although I do not share the same sentiments for any opinions in this video). Within BC, the province this woman is addressing, the provincial government pays to provide court advocacy programs such as specialized victim services for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Men, women, children and trans* persons are all eligible for services. Individual counselling sessions for men who are victims of domestic abuse and/or sexual assault are also free services for the client (available through the same court advocacy programs).
commented 2015-05-26 16:10:42 -0400
I am for equality. I do not like seeing someone suffer (man or woman). And I do not think fighting for a camp involves denigrating the other camp. I think there is much more to be done for women to be treated equal to men in all sectors, than the reverse (lets say, ask the man who today earn 20 % more money than me for the same job, equal competence and experience). Thanks to all feminists providing me the place that I have in society today.
commented 2015-05-17 08:22:25 -0400
“Most men don’t care about feminism and we won’t ever care.” And yet Lauren thinks women should care about male abuse! That says it all
commented 2015-05-16 03:00:43 -0400
Gotta wonder how many men are abused by their psycho gfs who don’t call the cops. Most men wouldn’t ever call to report them out of pride or fear that no one would give a shit. The cops wouldn’t care, and they’d assume the man did something to warrant an attack.

My good friend has been abused by his gf for years. They have kids together. She’s punched him in the face, thrown shit at him. She calls him names all the time. She yells and swears at her kids. She’s seen other men and has spent her monthly child benefits on them. I’ve only even known one domestic violence victim in my life and he’s a man. He won’t ever seek help or call the cops. I’ve tried.

To finish up, screw feminism. Women will never be as strong, confident, or proud as men. It’s just not the way nature made women. Whining about women’s rights isn’t going to change anything anyway. On another thought, so many feminists defend Islam while the most grievous female rights violations are committed by Muslim men who are allowed to stone, rape, and kill women for endless lists of reasons. If we compared female rights to those in the Middle East, and the violence committed toward women in those countries, our Western problems would seem quite shallow in comparison.

Most men don’t care about feminism and we won’t ever care.
commented 2015-05-14 14:20:49 -0400
Intimate Partner Abuse Against Men – National Clearinghouse on Family Violence


Here is a 14 page document from the Government of Canada – don’t let it be said that a feminist (me) didn’t try to help men in their struggles…you will find much more than the following at that location:

Services for Abused Men
There are few services designed specifically for abused men. However, support may be available from the following organizations, many of which are listed among the emergency services on or near the first page of your local telephone directory:

under “Police Service” – Family, Youth and Violent Crime Section

in life and death situations or regarding crimes in progress, call

RCMP Victim Services

under “Provincial Government” – Provincial Mental Health Boards

the YMCA, some centres of which have a Family Violence Prevention

Community and Social Service offices

Men’s Line

Counseling Services The National Clearinghouse on Family Violence has produced
A National Directory of Services and Programs for Men Who Are or Have Been Victims of Violence, which is available upon request. Contact information is included at the end of this document (see directions above in this post) and more:

commented 2015-05-12 16:11:13 -0400
In the end, young, beautiful and privileged white women raised in protected left wing sub-cultures or wealthy strong families, have projected their singular state of equality on all women around the country and are unable to see either their own potential danger*** or beyond their own noses to the many women living in different sub-cultures around them that are in no points similar, entitled or equal. Perhaps if they spent more time with women, they might know what I mean. Reality has a habit of changing one’s views…

Donna Hutt (nee Jones) was a success…a poster girl for equality.. she’d put herself through Carleton and had a civil service job and many friends…then real life kicked in…



You might also find the book “A Cry for Justice” by Pastor (former police officer) Jeff Crippen…worth reading… "This book will come as a life-saver in a raging sea for those under the thumb of an abusive spouse or “friend”."
commented 2015-05-02 22:37:25 -0400
Good argument and nice dry wit, Judy. Bravo!!
commented 2015-04-30 10:47:10 -0400
Really? If you want to actually know what you are talking about, I suggest you check out the Pennsylvania Education Equity Project…a far more balanced, rational and informed report on the male condition than this one by Lauren…from Penn State University…per…

“x y commented 8 days ago…Lauren, please educate yourself.
”http://sites.psu.edu/peep/2015/04/15/a-reply-to-lauren-southerns-why-im-not-a-feminist-by-jenna-christian/">http://sites.psu.edu/peep/2015/04/15/a-reply-to-lauren-southerns-why-im-not-a-feminist-by-jenna-christian/ "

For those whose minds are already made up however, don’t let the FACTS get in your way…There’s nothing more stubborn than facts. That is why you hate them so much.
commented 2015-04-27 23:46:45 -0400
…If, as one poster here said: “Lauren’s piece was about the male condition and how it is so under considered.” why was it entitled “Why I am not a feminist”?
commented 2015-04-27 09:41:27 -0400
Thx Lauren, guess we are not all equal under the Law! But of course the feminist cult is just another cult used for social division, unfortunately the folks that really require help are still left underserved.
commented 2015-04-25 08:06:29 -0400
Reader Be Warned – Long post ahead.
Here Be Dragons. And here goes…
Lauren’s video DID take balls, quite obviously, based upon some of the reactions I’ve read here. Given the topic at hand, my little comment was intended to be ironic, and I trust that was appreciated.
And quite frankly, I didn’t perceive Lauren’s statements as intending to be defensive of anyone, or any particular viewpoint, other than perhaps her own. Even then, all she did was express her personal opinions. All I’ve seen from certain other commenters are antagonist comments and — occasionally — outright attacks, mixed with the odd, general statement with which I might sometimes agree. So it’s no surprise to hear that these commenters perceive others as defensive, especially if this is how they generally converse and engage with people whose opinions don’t align with their own. For those commenters, all I have to say is that their narrow-mindedness is making them miss out on experiencing real human intellectual growth.
Quoting a few particularly egregious and gratuitous examples of female objectification from gangster rap lyrics doesn’t add anything to one’s credibility, either. The Wikipedia link notes a number of prominent female rap artists whose work challenges all the reproduced lyrics, many of which I’m quite familiar with, like Salt n Pepa, Queen Latifah, Beyonce, etc. The Youtube link is, I would say, a notable contribution to this list. This girl is truly spectactular, but again I fail to see how this shows that “some” Muslim women think “WE” have it worse, by which I think you mean to imply that western women have it worse than women in Muslim cultures. If I’m wrong, I apologize, but I am very curious why anyone would even entertain such an irrational notion? Was that meant to be funny?
It really bothers me the way some western women treat each other, like referring to their female friends as “bitches”, “hoes” and “whores”, attacking other women for being attractive or dressing a certain way, or implying that they are no more than unfortunate dupes of a male-dominated, leftist political/religious conspiracy, and therefore have no active, independent agency over their lives. Western women, of all women in the world, enjoy the highest level of equality, independence and freedom, and to suggest otherwise, especially with reference to the experiences of Muslim women, is a major slapdown to all the burgeoning feminist movements in numerous Islamic/Arabic societies that need our support and assistance. What these women certainly don’t need is ignorant diminishment of their struggles by whiney, well-intentioned but misguided western "F"eminists, especially from a self-described “Biblical feminist” who, despite seeming to blame religion, endlessly quotes passages from the Bible, ostensibly offering up appeals to the ultimate Christian authority as definitive proof of some sort in order to end the argument.
All this does is divide women amongst themselves, silence all alternative argument and thereby censor free expression of individual female identity. How does this fit with the ideals and aims of feminism? Judy, I am sincerely interested to know how this fits within your personal definition of “Biblical feminism”. Is this equality?
Which reminds me, if the concept of equality is not man-made, then where did it come from? Aliens? Nature? I’ve looked pretty hard for a long time, but I have yet to come across anything that even remotely resembles equality occurring in nature. Then again, my conception of “nature” may differ from yours too, so to clarify, I think of nature, as in the entire universe including our little planet, being in a constant state of dynamic disequilibrium. I don’t believe in the fictition that the earth is fragile, precariously balanced, and, until humans (especially Europeans) came on the scene, was essentially unchanged for millions of years. Our knowlege of the world and of our place therein is still in its infancy, but one thing is certain — the only constant in the universe is constant change.
So religion maybe? Can I infer from your comment Judy, that you believe religion (Christianity) to be the source of equality? If so, I’d just remind you that religion itself is a human creation that does not exist outside of human societies. I’m not anti-religious or anything, and in fact probably share with you a common, European-Canadian, Judeo-Christian ancestry. When I was growing up, however, my parents were devout atheists (just as much a religion as any other, in my opinion), and so naturally, I developed an insatiable curiosity about all religions. But I retain a sympathy towards Christianity that may bias my perspective from time to time.
That said, modern Christianity has clearly embraced the concept of equality, especially in various Christian-rooted, so-called “social justice” movements that emerged through the latter twentieth century and into the twenty-first. But where Christianity has evolved, I would argue other religions have not, or at least not to the same degree. I could write an entire thesis on how and why the western concept of equality simply does not exist in Islamic countries. Perhaps that’s why so many want to emigrate to western countries like Canada.
The young woman in Judy’s link was obviously a westerner, despite wearing a head scarf, because only in the west are Islamic women free to do what she did. I don’t know her reasons for wearing the head scarf, but to me, it signifies that she is still filially tied to a society that would jail or even execute her for making such a video. I can’t help but see wearing a head scarf in her video as a very public attempt to diminish her own female identity and assuage her guilt for exercising a freedom not available in Muslim societies by catering to more conservative members of her immediate family and the Muslim community, both male and female alike.
Then again, perhaps it was simply a statement of cultural/religious identity that she happens to like. Personally, it’s not for me, but then I didn’t even wear a veil at my wedding. I did, however, wear a green and blue plaid wedding dress, getting married in my mother’s Scottish ancestors’ clan MacKenzie tartan colours. That was my statement, and my catering to my family and paying homage to my heritage. That’s quite a bit different from wearing a head scarf, a niqab or even a burkha everyday. My wedding dress was a personal expression of identity, whereas these are all intended to suppress and silence women.
The oft-cited justification heard from some Islamic women centres around protecting their modesty. This, I think, is a real example of the pervasive male dominance at work in Islamic culture, brainwashing women to participate in silencing and subjugating themselves, ostensibly, they are told, to protect their own spiritual good and physical well-being. Was it Marx or Hegel who first described the necessity for complicity and cooperation by the subjects of hegemonic systems?
I wonder how many rapes and other assaults by men against women are reported in Islamic countries vs. the vast number that likely go unreported. In a society where women tend to be blamed and executed for being raped I would imagine there are few reports made, if any.
In Canada, however, the situation is entirely different because we value individual equality and the rule of law above all forms of religious and cultural dogma. There is nothing wrong with rationally analyzing different religions and cultures and expressing one’s personal judgments and preferences.
Thankfully, as westerners, we don’t need to quibble over the source of equality, or what that concept means, because we are fortunate enough to live it. But it doesn’t come without some responsibility.
Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of Canadian "F"eminists that will probably never admit to how far we’ve come, or acknowledge how good western women actually have it, especially compared to women in Muslim countries. In the name of "F"eminism, some of these seriously misguided women actually argue that Muslim women in Canada have a special feminist right to cover their faces and/or bodies, completely obscuring their identities to the public. Ironically, this kind of "F"eminist activism doesn’t advance women’s equality at all. It actually validates and perpetuates old-world Islamic and Arabic anti-egalitarian and anti-feminist religious/cultural attitudes and practices.
Covering one’s face — male or female — to me, suggests illicitness, criminality and/or otherwise existing outside of the rest of society. Permitting a particular group of women to cover their faces in public establishes an exclusive category of women in Canada, for one. Second, but perhaps more important, by NOT legislating against concealing your face in public — whether male or female, regardless of religion, culture, etc. — Canada as a whole is equally guilty of tacitly permitting Islamic immigrants to continue such practices.
Our failure in this regard (no doubt due to pressure from a multiplicity of “feminist”, civil liberties and religious groups) has led to greater insularity and ghetto-ization among Canadian Muslim communities in Canada. In consequence I’ve seen a dramatic increase of the boldness exhibited by some members of these communities who take justice into their own hands. Twenty years ago, I don’t think I’d ever heard of an “honour killing”, at least not in Canada. Today I’m familiar with news reports of a dozen or so that occurred in Canada just over the past few years. One of the most recent honour killings featured the estranged husband/murderer gaining access to his wife/victim’s apartment by dressing in a burkha on the night of the murder. Other than the use of the burkha, most disturbing was the reaction from the victim’s own family members, making excuses and attempting to justify her estranged husband’s premeditated actions. They actually supported him and blamed her because she left her husband (slash cousin or uncle or something by way of an arranged marriage).
Is this what we want for Canada? Do we really want to end up like numerous European countries, with Islamic no-go zones occupying Canadian cities, in which male-dominated Muslim communities are left alone to dispense justice to their own according to shariah law? No, I don’t think so. But if we don’t provide support for independence-seeking Muslim women in the way of legislation that properly condemns such practices, I am very much concerned that’s exactly what will happen.
So for all those women reading this, and especially you self-described feminists, I strongly urge you to stop and think before unjustly attacking other women (especially online, which is both more vicious and also cowardly). I would also recommend against expressing support and arguing for something you really know nothing about, or that you haven’t thought out fully in advance.
commented 2015-04-24 04:49:40 -0400
I know it was an old thread, but I was truly inspired and after reviewing all the previous comments, I just couldn’t help responding.
commented 2015-04-23 23:51:40 -0400
Lauren’s piece wasn’t about celebrating the success of and progress of women, the celebrating success comment was my reaction to the extreme neg. I am getting from Judy, (and Joan.) Laurens piece was about the male condition and how it is so under considered. It is not a contest Judy. What men think and feel matters to women, because it affects how they think and feel about us. Do you think we have never heard those disgusting lyrics before, and we need you to post them? It is as if you are fighting with yourself.
commented 2015-04-23 22:38:20 -0400
Judy what on earth does any of your rant have to do with celebrating success? All I hear from you is victim,oppressor, men bad.
commented 2015-04-23 19:09:43 -0400
You observation was astute…“it took balls on Lauren’s part.”… interesting, your choice of words :)…she was openly intending to create friction because she has had it before with this post. If she is on the ‘fearless’ rebel media she has to be fearless…right? and people who live in glass houses don’t throw stones…she is very safe…because of whom she defends.

…many have become desensitized to the ocean of abusive language from certain kinds of men that you surround yourselves with…the new music of this, what you call, an “egalitarian” age…and yet you are so sensitive to the female replies of amazed despair, you call contempt, on this post…what do you call rap music…love?


Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks / Lick on these nuts and suck the dick / Get’s the fuck out after you’re done / And I hops in my ride to make a quick run.
—Dr. Dre, “Bitches Ain’t Shit”

Slut, you think I won’t choke no whore / ‘Til the vocal cords don’t work in her throat no more?! / Shut up slut, you’re causin’ too much chaos.
—Eminem, “Kill You”

Punch your bitch in her mouth just for talkin’ shit / You lurkin’ bitch? Well, I see that shit / Once again I gotta punch a bitch in her shit / I’m icy bitch, don’t look at my wrist / Because if you do, I might blind you bitch.
—Jasper Dolphin, “Bitch Suck Dick” by Tyler, The Creator

( I apologize for the language but it is not mine…and it is openly played on all media for all to hear and see, including children……I just hope it will wake some people up) “Over the past thirty years, violence against women has escalated in popular culture. The misogynist language … has been embraced by… the mainstream entertainment industry – … EVEN Bell Mobility, introduced a line of ring tones called “PimpTones” that featured abusive language and threats of violence”! And then a few days ago I was told there is the rape of a woman on the video game “Grand Theft Auto”…my nephews played it when they were children…

Hatred of feminism is perpetrated against them by a successful use of political spin by those they oppose. Even blaming it on the political left is inaccurate, as much of it originated in churches long before it became a political tool where they were called “Jezebels”. Almost all the accusations against feminists are bitter and vengefully biased responses from those of the leaders who opposed them, fearing an erosion of their power and blaming feminists for their own actions that were destroying families and the society… forcing a divide among females for their own ends such as this…just more of the same old..same old…blame the wounded, kill the messenger…rape music shows who is in control…how is this working for you?

For you who appreciate Lauren’s point of view, then, I reiterate a question @marlene asked way back…: "…Surely the more salient question is “why are men raping other men in greater numbers even than they rape women?”

And for you who object to the “feminists’ failure” to defend Islamic women: can’t you see that even some Muslim women think WE have it worse! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogCbwU4KGEY

This is why I AM a feminist…A Biblical feminist…our culture needs stable families, good male and female parents, less ambition and more authenticity, and a lot of kindness…seek real peace that only equality can bring…and open your eyes to your own reality.

Oh, and @erin..equality is not a man-made concept.. you have to be kidding! Equality has many enemies in this world but it will come…even though"..truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter ."

i.e. " God said (male and female) let THEM have dominion"… “Therefore shall a man …cleave unto his wife: and they shall be ONE flesh.”…" O house of Israel, ARE NOT MY WAYS EQUAL? are not your ways unequal ?“…” the LORD;… he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity."… “honour your father AND your mother”…“But by an equality… that there may be equality”: (male and female) “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another”; “LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF”…“all things ye would that others would do to you, do ye even so to them”..(.all this is equality,…liberty also comes from God…100 times oppression is mentioned as opposed to God and it’s opposite, liberty, is proposed) " the LORD hath…sent me to bind up the brokenhearted , to proclaim liberty to the captives , and the opening of the prison to them that are bound"…(Liberty, Equality and brotherhood were revealed in the Bible at the Reformation.)
commented 2015-04-23 13:22:51 -0400
When I first listened to Lauren, I thought, yes, good points. All I was hearing around me from young women was, woe is me, I am being held back/ down by men. I just couldn’t see it as the rule. Life in the west as a woman looked and felt pretty good to me, and around me. I was pleased to hear Lauren’s take on it. I think my first post confused, the next poster at least, because I said that is seemed as though a lot of feminist’s were tearing the family apart from within, that it was being used today as a tool to advance socialist agenda, (she later tried to explain to me that Lauren’s take was an attack from the left, and was the attack on women.) I was really taken aback by the first good swipe at Lauren. I truly didn’t expect such venom. I didn’t think everyone would agree with her but the quality and depth of the contempt thrown at her was alarming to me.

Everyone, man or woman who didn’t subscribe exactly to the narrative of two(and a small smattering of maybe two ) were grouped in as every nasty, woman raping, man helping, turncoat,baby killer, misogynist, “misogynist mother”. And this constant reference to Sharia. Bringing in Sharia changed the whole context and made it impossible really, for any discussion to prevail. It looks like it still won’t. Looks like we are back to the same old same old, cut and paste stats. I just don’t see the point in arguing over who gets beat up more and worse. And unless we brought Sharia into the country when we came here from Islamic countries, it doesn’t define us.

I would like to say, however that you Erin give me hope for the future. I felt proud when I read what you had to say. And not one hateful word was spoken, no attack was made, and I learned a lot .

You are right, it took balls on Lauren’s part. This is one of my favourites from Erin’s post, “To even suggest that women have never asserted any will of their own or had any hand in directing the course of their own lives and histories is tantamount to an admission of the triumph of male domination, and completely disrespects the actual struggles of early feminists.”
commented 2015-04-23 08:36:56 -0400
The National Post reported:

(CAFE is the Canadian Association For Equality)

“In backing up its claim, CAFE cites a 2009 Statistics Canada survey that found an estimated 601,000 Canadian women and 585,000 men experienced spousal violence. That study, HOWEVER, also notes that women are twice as likely to be physically injured during spousal abuse than men; and almost seven times as likely to fear for their lives.”
Now why do you suppose this added clarification in the second sentence has been mentioned? Is this just a minor point regarding this post? I think not! This supports the view of several of us here that the statistic cited by Southern and these billboards, is clarified by the facts in the second sentence above, from the SAME survey, as we suspected. Once the above points are mentioned it becomes obvious that a large portion of the so-called 50% of men who “experienced” spousal violence were in fact the perpetrators who were not physically injured nor did they fear for their lives! Perhaps the Statistics Canada surveyors asked the question about ‘experiencing sexual violence’ so that the results of the survey were skewed exposing the fact that experiencing spousal violence is a two-way experience for both the victim and the victimizer…

This Stats Canada survey seems at odds with the view quoted here that “Men account for almost half the number of victims of domestic violence” from a 2009 Statistics Cda report…in fact the FOLLOWING 2014 report from Stats Canada says “MOST victims of intimate partner violence are women”…has there been a SUDDEN CHANGE in behaviour in the last 5 years!

commented 2015-04-23 02:41:39 -0400
I thought this thread was done. Poked back on a hunch after your clue comment in a recent thread. Am so glad I did. My hat is off to you. Well worth the long read.
commented 2015-04-22 05:53:34 -0400
Well, if anything else, Lauren Southern’s video sure fired up a lively debate. It took me quite a while, but I finally finished reading all the comments, from the oldest up to the most recent. That, in and of itself, warrants some attention, I think. So listen closely:
1. The back and forth commenting is most notable for proving that “feminism” definitely means different things to different people. For those commenters that referenced dictionary definitions, I would suggest googling the words “connotation” and “denotation”. The stripped-down, apoliticized, dictionary definitions cited are not representative of the myriad different conceptions and “connotations” of feminism that exist today, many of which are seemingly independent of culture, nationality, gender, relgion, social/economic status, etc. Many female commenters have claimed conservative affiliation, and some derided all conceptions of feminism different from their own (or other than the dictionary definition) as a liberal, leftist, yet simultaneously male-dominated conspiracy of some sort. Admittedly, I fail to see any logic to this insinuation, and yet I also tend to identify as conservative/libertarian. Go figure. I’m also a woman, but I found Lauren Southern’s video inspiring and relevant. Obviously, you all did too, otherwise why 8 pages of comments from more or less the same people?
Almost everyone here has attempted to define or describe what feminism means to them — personally — in this thread. Few have actually attempted to relate the historical context and evolution of western, Judeo-Christian based feminism, which comments I appreciated reading immensely. I merely note the western perspective has been emphasized in all explanations of what feminism means, whereas most of the modern-day examples of female repression offered up in the comments arise from an entirely different historical/cultural/religious perspective — one in which the concept of “humanism” was never advanced (Islam.)
By contrast, references to male rape and domestic abuse are (not to be disrespectful or diminish the occurrences in any way) somewhat of a red herring, and statistics of any kind are always subject to manipulation and bias of some sort. This includes statistics re: female sexual assault in Canada, where sexual assault in the Criminal Code covers every sin from inappropriate (and perhaps unintentional) touching, to full-blown unwilling pentration of any kind. Plus, modern Canadian “Rape-Shield” laws protect women sexual assault complainants from being subjected to scrutiny or cross-examination about their sexual history, relationships, style and manner of dress, etc.
And yet still, we are constantly reminded about female underreporting. So, isn’t it at least possible (if not even more likely) that male underreporting of the same crimes also occurs, thus underrepresenting whatever number StatsCan presents about male victimization by women, that’s likely already 3-5 years out of date? Men are inarguably less likely to report being the victim of a crime by a female assailant than are women likely to report being victimized by a man. That is a simple cultural fact. Further, I know from professional experience (10 years in print journalism) that news media generally isn’t interested in stories about male victimization by women. So even when it is reported, society at large generally doesn’t hear too much about it.
Look at the film Fight Club, which shows a male perspective of modern, masculine cultural emasculation and their refusal to identify as victims. Better yet, look at almost all home product commercials, or most family sitcoms on television today that depict the father/husband as an incompetent doofus while the mother/wife figure is portrayed as eminently intelligent, and the real head of the family.
But as I said, statistics and examples are merely a distraction and not directly relevant to the topic of feminism.
2. Feminism’s multiple waves – generally, most scholars and theorists refer to three waves of feminism, with a fourth wave either perpetually on the horizon or having already passed, depending who you believe. Myself, I ascribe to the four-wave theory, having studied much feminist scholarship in my undergrad (Comparative Literature major, emphasis on Canadian Lit., Sociology and History, minor in Philosophy, focusing on Symbolic Logic, Metalogic and Comparative Relgious Studies and Worldviews). Might as well say I also had a 10-year career in journalism before eventually going to law school, and have now been practising for the past few years. So that’s my background, which I hope helps contextualize where I’m coming from.
I very much enjoyed Pat Anjali’s comments about societal/technological developments in history being connected to changing sex/gender roles. Not all of you may agree, but this is a fairly persuasive argument, although on its own cannot explain the stunting of Arabic/Islamic culture as compared with Western civilization. Now that is a value-laden judgment, and one for which I will not apologize. Making use of our capacity for rationality, judgment, and yes, even hierarchical evaluation and categorization, is no more evil than a monkey picking and eating its own fleas, despite whatever the high priests of political correctness may preach about so-called “equality”.
Equality is a man-made concept, and laudable it may be, is not realistic except in striving for equality of legal treatment and opportunity under the law. Equality of will, input, ambition, desire, energy, intelligence, physical ability, etc. is impossible, and as such, equality of results is a pipe dream. So there aren’t as many female CEOs as male CEOs in Canada. Big deal. Logically, it doesn’t equate to injustice. Many women still choose to leave the workforce sooner, or take themselves out of competition and consideration for promotion, partnerships, etc. No one can have it all, despite what feminists used to claim, which is what my mother grew up with.
I probably come close to Lauren Southern’s experience in that I am relatively young (33-years-old), attractive, white, Canadian, educated, and above all, female (and I occasionally wear high heels and lipstick). For those characteristics alone, some of the other female commenters may discount everything I have to say, but it is to be expected. These older women come from a different period in feminism, when perhaps it did used to really mean ‘equality for all’ and not just the promotion of femininity at any cost, including at the expense of masculinity. My own mother eventually woke up and realized that, no, she couldn’t do it all, no one can. Male or female. For those with a religious bent, perhaps this is why God made both man and woman, in orderr to help each other, with each using his and her own unique, sometimes more male and sometimes more female, strengths and weaknesses, which although different, are capable of combining occasionally in a beautiful harmony and achieving dramatic results.
As a Type A female, I only recently realized I couldn’t do it all. No matter how hard I try. I’ve certainly experienced my share of discrimination, sexism, harassment and even sexual assault (ranging from anonymous slaps on the ass while making my way through a crowded bar to full-on, black-out drunk, not necessarily consensual sex.) When I could locate the particular culprit of a specific ass-slap, I did not hesitate to call out the idiot, usually a drunken buffoon on which my rehetoric was entirely wasted. But I at least felt I was taking control and being an active agent in my own life, responsible and accountable for my own life choices. Yes, I was in a crowded bar, many times… it’s not a crime, nor do I deserve to be groped just for walking through the door, no less than I deserve to be minimalized because I happen to be attractive, young, and disagree with the feminist experiences of a bunch of women decades older than me. I respect these women had vastly different experiences than me, but that doesn’t mean their opinons are more authoritative, or conversely that the opinions of today’s young women, like Lauren Southern and myself, are wrong, uninformed or evil.
Instead, I’ve had to grapple with the insecurity and uncertainty arising from not knowing whether my achievements were truly my own, as in solely due to my abilities, or if I “earned” them through some other means. I’ve wondered at least a thousand times, from at least junior high on, how much I owe simply to being born a woman, and especially to being born a white, attractive, English-speaking Canadian woman, into a stable, middle-upper class family? I was born into the belief that I could do anything, be anything, etc. But I couldn’t help but wonder if I was accepted into law school just to fill a female quota, or if I really deserved my spot? How many jobs applied for were legitimately offered to me because I was the most qualified, vs. simply being pretty, young, well-dressed, articulate, etc?
This is the true spectre of the early waves of feminism. This, I posit, is the fourth wave — western, female, gender-based guilt. My female antecedents supposedly fought so I could do it all, but the problem is, I can’t. I have human limits.
At least, however, I acknowledge their efforts on my behalf. I know full well where we came from, and unlike some here, won’t diminish those true struggles by re-writing history through a feminist lens. Sure, some women farm wives helped out their husbands roughing out an existence on the prairies in early Canada, but that doesn’t mean this help was in any way equivalent to the intense physical labour that was essentially all done by men, while women reigned supreme over all things domestic.
All through the history of western civilization, at least women have had some piece of the pie, albeit not an equal one (historically, but as I would argue, more or less equal in contemporary Canadian society.) This is in stark contrast to Islamic and other societies, where women are still, even today, entirely excluded from the pie altogether — they are what Spivak calls “subaltern”.
It is highly ironic then, that some commenters appropriated the voice of the historic, allegedly male, oppressor, by responding to Lauren’s video with aggressive, vitriolic, knee-jerk reactions devoid of logical argument, focusing instead upon the singular task of tearing her down on the basis of her (seeming) youth, attractive physical appearance (and choice of lipstick colour), and entirely non-expressed and irrelevant political associations (conveniently googled and posted herein.) Spivak would not disapprove, in fact, she would probably say that adopting the voice of the oppressor is one way to get the oppressor’s attention. Respectfully, I disagree.
First, western, north american and especially white Canadian women are not subalterns. They are just as much the colonizers as their/our male counterparts. To blame the entirety of the feminine condition and so-called female repression/oppression on men in general is to deny the existence of females having any active agency, and essentially reinforces the historic rationale for male-dominated female subjectivity. Just like Pat Anjali notes, women obviously played an active role in establishing and preserving gender roles, and had just as much to protect and gain from doing so as men. Why else would (married) women have emerged as the leading lobbyists for Prohibition?
All this discussion over history, and the experiences of older vs. younger generation women (whether “feminist” or not) shows is how free we actually are. Quite obviously, things have changed. But rather than celebrate how far we’ve come, some here choose to ignore our achievements. Some, in what I can only perceive to be motivated by Islamophobia, predict the imminent demise of female equality in Canada due to the threat of the influx of sharia law. Not a fan, myself, and I will definitely fight to prevent the erosion of Canadian parliamentary democracy and the rule of law by radical Islamic individuals and groups. But I can’t help but wonder how these same commenters, so vocal about the insidious takeover of Islamic, and the spread of sharia law in Canada, feel about Muslim women wearing the niqab during their official Canadian citizenship ceremonies (and face veils and burkhas generally?) I’ve been extremely surprised by comments from self-described “feminists” in support of a so-called “right” to wear a face veil at an official Canadian public function, even one as important and venerable as an official citizenship ceremony.
I can’t help but observe that many of the comments from other women in this thread achieve nothing but division. Feminism, if anything, was concerned in the beginning with uniting women along common goals, like suffrage, personhood, equal treatment under the law, property rights, and voting. Sewing division in the ranks was the typical response of male opposition to the growing feminist movement.
I admire and congratulate Lauren Southern for posting her video, which she did probably knowing full well what kind of stramach it would cause. That truly takes balls. Call it a generation gap, but I wholeheartedly agree with her position. She succinctly put into words what I’ve felt intuitively for probably the last 15 years (or the majority of my adult life.) Perhaps, as with "L"iberal vs. “liberal”, we need to differentiate between "F"eminism and “feminists”. I am an avowed non-Feminist, but share most if not all of the first-wave, pioneering feminist ideals about basic equality of individual opportunity and treatment before the law. Where I disagree is the point where "F"eminism diverged into a multiplicity of (supposedly) equally valid, subjective experienced-based conceptualizations in the wake of the application of so-called post-modern theoretical approaches to analysis of feminist criticism. Post-modernism is indeed interested, but logically speaking, the basic premise is as bankrupt as a New York stockbroker in early November of 1929.
Trust me, in my second year at university I got an A+ on a 400-level comparative literature term paper, titled something like, “The Simpsons: A Postmodern Sitcom”. Think about it, watching The Simpsons as research. I know from which I speak. Ask me anything about modernism or post-modernism, from pastiche to metalepsis. Ask me about literary, philosophical and cultural theory. Ask me about the development of different world legal systems, or the history of science, technology and medicine (greatest technological achievement since 1500 A.D.: printing press, hands down.) Invite me to discuss the philosophies and aesthetics of Aristotle, Marx, Hegel, Nietsche, Gramsci, Atorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, Baudrillard, Dalton, Marvey, Gilbert and Gubar, Spivak, Said, Dijkstra, McLuhan, Lacan, Mitchell, de Beauvoir, Rich, Atwood, Friedan, Showalter, Kristeva, Duras, Ettinger, Irigaray, Fanon, Barthes, Bordieu, Hutcheon, Jameson, Waugh, Verda, Cixous, etc. But don’t get me started on whether I agree that the pen is actually a metaphorical penis, the continental-based phallocentric theory of writing, Verda’s appropriation of Lacan’s theory of the mirror phase into her New Wave films (e.g. Cléo de 5 à 7), or, most importantly, don’t bother asking why I’ve included men on this list as the rationale is quite obvious.
I only offer this background since there seems to have been quite a lot of back and forth attacks, but I’m not naming any names. You know who you are. I can only say that even those who came across as being the least tolerant of others’ views occasionally had something of value to offer to the discussion. Others stepped up to direct the discussion back to the topic at hand, valiantly ignoring or brushing off some of the most negative and ignorant comments. One of the most reactionary and prolific commenters admitted to not reading any of the previous comments posted by her target, and still concluded that they were all the same hate-filled messages and hence not worthy of her time. Ahem.
That same commenter also said “equality is a gift” from the superior to the inferior in society, and turned a simple philosophical question about abortion in general vs. gender-selective abortion in particular into an accusation that the poster supported killing fetuses. The same commenter also denied one of the oldest, most basic philosical/logical truths: equivalence (explanation of same nobly, but unsuccessfully, attempted by another anonymous poster.) From my thousand-foot view, it seems certain commenters are unfamiliar with foundational logic, or are at least confused by them. For example, while equivalence means having all the same properties, non-equivalence does not necessarily mean having none of the same properties, i.e. like the Euro-centric idea of binary oppositions. It simply means not having all the same properties. That’s it. Different, but not necessarily opposite, or even better and worse, the latter of which are moral judgments.
The ability to recognize similarity and difference and make rational, value-based judgments is an essential part of being human. Religious or not, no one can logically argue that it is preferable to deny and subdue our human nature (and our evolutionary or God-given traits/gifts, or some combination thereof) for any reason or under any circumstances. Yet my problem with modern "F"eminism is its rigidity and tendency for extreme, illogical reaction to any suggestion of reverse sexism against masculinity in modern culture and society, even as an unintended consequence.
Rewriting Canadian history in an effort to be more inclusive, ultimately exaggerating the societal roles, economic contributions and overall experiences of women and minorities, doesn’t make it so. Moreover, one should be cautious about erasing and ignoring history for fear of repeating it. Some commenters have repeatedly offered dire predictions based on an imagined imminent decline of women’s rights in Canada. If women like some of the commenters on this thread continue to deny history and the reality of continuous female agency throughout, it may very well happen.
To even suggest that women have never asserted any will of their own or had any hand in directing the course of their own lives and histories is tantamount to an admission of the triumph of male domination, and completely disrespects the actual struggles of early feminists.
My biggest fear, however, is that these same women, in a well-intended but misguided effort in the name of feminism, will only end up hastening the erosion of Canadian values of equality. Tell me, how do the women on this thread feel about the niqab?
Some of you are very quick to judge, yet are supremely incapable of producing a single civil response to anyone else’s criticism of your own offered-up personal opinions and experiences. Yours are the only valid views, apparently, and everyone who challenges or disagrees with you is automatically not worthy of serious response. You revel in name-calling and cry foul when it comes back to you.
Instead of lecturing everyone else, I suggest you engage in a more profitable exercise and learn how to make a polite response, without degenerating into ad hominem attacks. Seriously, it’s barely a step up from “I’m rubber, you’re glue.” Do us all a favour and don’t come back until you grow up and are able to converse in a civil manner like the adult you claim to be.
Lauren, again, your video was much appreciated, and obviously stimulated a lot of comment! I’d call that a success, despite the few cranks and trolls that are bound to pop up here and there.
Keep it up.
commented 2015-04-21 04:54:07 -0400
Michael S. Kimmel
Male Victims of Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review
Page 4 of 5
“…All other available data suggests, quite strongly, that domestic violence, like all other forms of violence, is greatly gender asymmetrical–with men perpetrating the majority of the violence. …Since women’s violence is often retaliatory or self-defense, it may help to expose some of the ways men use violence to control women, and women’s perceived absence of options other than fighting back. Fourth, acknowledging women’s violence is important because women using violence in a domestic relationship increases their risks for more severe retaliation by men. Fifth, men benefit from efforts to reduce men’s violence against women. The efforts to increase services and supports for battered women have worked to reduce the incidence of domestic murder of men by 70% since 1977. In short, women’s violence against men in domestic relationships does happen, but it is different than men’s violence–it is far less injurious, and less likely to be motivated by a desire to dominate or control
their partner. … While expressive violence may be more symmetrical (although excluding sexual assaults,
stalking and post-relationship violence suggests that this form of violence too is more asymmetrical than
the data from CTS suggests–Kimmel suggests a gendered difference of ¼ women and ¾ men);
instrumental violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men–over 90%.“Men are more violent than women
–both inside the home and in the public sphere. ‘IT IS MISLEADING (AND DANGEROUS) TO CHARACTERIZE MARITAL VIOLENCE AS MUTUAL VIOLENCE (Fagan and Browne, 1996, p. #169). .. Kimmel’s paper clearly demonstrates, on both a methodological and substantive level, that the gender symmetry argument of domestic violence falls short. In is opinion with out basis and the continued use of this argument not only prevents us from being able to work towards real solutions, but it places women at continued (and increasing) risk.

commented 2015-04-20 20:48:34 -0400
Lauren has done some thinking and research. More power to you , lady!
commented 2015-04-20 01:21:24 -0400
Listen to yourself Judy, you are a bully.
commented 2015-04-20 00:52:06 -0400
I really hate to hear you pull Harper into your rhetoric, Judy. Sorry but you do not speak for all conservative women.