1/2 It's clear that feminism, as a concept, is flawed and has always been since its origin everyone knows that. But I must say that I don't believe in "anti-feminist women." Conservatives and anti-feminists (especially women) love to cite historical "anti-feminist" female leaders like Phyllis Schlafly or Mrs. Humphry Ward, but there's an ironic paradox: to defend the idea that "a woman's place is in the home and away from politics," which is true, these conservative leaders needed to travel the country giving fiery public speeches, write opinion pieces, organize committees, and do strong political lobbying with congressmen, all in a political environment. to preach submission and withdrawal from public life, (which again, is correct), they acted in an extremely political and public way.Although I despise the suffragettes with all my might, in pointing out the hypocrisy of the "anti-suffragettes" using the very freedom they fought against, they were right.men should be the ones to act politically, but Figures like Mrs. Humphry Ward, when criticized on this point, would engage in mental gymnastics and cope arguments that women could and should participate in charitable leagues, school boards, and local health districts bla bla as this would be an "extension of the home.
>>186624462/2 This argument about "extending the home" was essentially a way to rationalize their own ambition and public performance without losing the approval of the Simps who held real power. Why do I say this? It's quite simple women who validate masculine and traditional discourses gain a prominent position that other women don't have (just like today on the internet) when women fawn over men, they receive applause, media space, and protection from the male elite. It's that simple, like in any political movement. They held an informal, behind-the-scenes power to influence the influential (husband), which was safer and more guaranteed than formal power. Just like "conservative" women. They considered themselves articulate and intelligent enough to lead a political movement, but continued to argue that the average or ordinary woman lacked the capacity to vote or participate in politics. >saar ONLY imperial or parliamentary politics and the national vote, which they considered a "purely masculine sphere" linked to war, we can still act in politics, lobbying with congressmen and creating political movements by giving fiery public speeches saar
>>18662447>>18662446I've been saying this for years Traditional women don't need movements or accounts with thousands of followers they simply are the most anti-feminist and suffragist woman of all was my maternal great-grandmother. When asked what she thought about voting etc she simply said she didn't care and that "it was a man's thing," and then went back to taking care of her five children and the house
>>18662449If they actually believed the domestic slop they were preaching, they would be home doing dishes, not running political campaigns. Strangely, to argue that women shouldn't have a public voice they had to use their own public voice
>>18662446I've always found these anti-feminist/suffragist women's movements paradoxical they seem like a kind of "Rules for thee, but not for me" enlightened exceptions while locking the door behind them. Why are they more suited to activist politics than others? Simply because they are on the "right side"?
>>18662449The mistake of these anti-feminist and anti-suffragist activists and even the feminists and their liberal affirmative action, is to portray women as political beings, when in their essence lies apoliticality.
>>18662446>there's an ironic paradox: to defend the idea that "a woman's place is in the home and away from politics," which is true, these conservative leaders needed to travel the country giving fiery public speechesThis is retarded paradox.The problem with feminism is not that a woman is *allowed* to work. The problem is that *work* is perceived as something to be actively desired.A non-working woman occupied a unique niche: she in theory had all the time in the world for herself (self-education, etc.), while a man-tool-slave-thing had to toil 24/7 on a shit-job to bring-in moneys.But thanks to capitalism this cradle for the nascent autodidact intellectual caste was demolished. Now family is just 2 beasts slave-toiling, while you child is reared at school by a complete stranger (a teacher, a governmental drone), whose job is further zombification.
>>18662463Bingo
>>18662496OP isn't talking about work, you imbecile.
>>18662446>Phyllis SchlaflyConservacucks have always been idiots, it seems, lol.
>>18662446I agree with you OP, but didn't anyone see these contradictions at the time? Weren't there any criticisms?
>>18662649What?
>>18662447Ironically, modern conservative women who make a living writing books and giving lectures on "how to be submissive" are cultural mercenaries, just as these xiiter profiles on the internet are grifters. These women love the economic and legal freedom that the modern world gives them (the right to sign contracts, earn money independently, and have public careers), using traditionalism merely as a lucrative market niche to attract simps who need to hear the same thing already said a million times
>>18662446>>18662447What's the surprise? All those anti-feminist women of the past (like the elite anti-suffragettes) weren't fighting for royal tradition they were fighting for their custodial privilege, just as today they fight for the state's protection of their dependency through empowerment. I've never read any books by "anti-feminist women" and I never will.
>>18662788An under-discussed aspect of feminism is the genetic proliferation of unpleasant women. Under patriarchy, nasty miserable sows would have limited reproductive success, most would get filtered. Men today are powerless and desperate, they'll breed with almost anything.
>>18662446>>18662447>>18662815Perhaps these anti-suffragettes were just rich people's larpers, but it's not fair to blame the women. It wasn't their fault they were simply victims of brainwashing. The 1960s-70s cultural revolutions were deliberately organized & funded by elite institutions like the Rockefeller & Ford Foundations. Civil Rights, Feminism & the LGBT movement was not natural or spontaneous like water flowing downstream. We can't blame women
>>18662818>but it's not fair to blame the women>simply victims of brainwashing.>We can't blame womenWhy do conservatives have to act this way? Instead of admitting that these women are simply evil, right-wingers will cope by claiming they're "just dumb" or "misled" or whatever. You're part of the problem, my friend.Their main political issue in recent decades has been murdering their unborn children so they can be promiscuous until they're really old and ugly and work a shitty job in an Office are also the fault of the joooos, right?
>>18662818Shut up simp
>>18662815>men today will breed with almost anything>somehow this is womens’ fault>>18662496Women worked all the time in the past, especially poor womenThe idea of the stay at home mom is something of a more recent (post-industrial rev) middle class idealThe reason most feminists rejected that ideal is because money is autonomy. If your husband died or was abusive, you were shit out of luck
>>18662840Off topic, retard
>>18662788traditionalism, just like feminism, is a right-wing extremist movement involving the abuse of sons and the killing of men. Both ideologies must be abolished.
