It contained this quote: "They [teh Feminists] hate femininity (which they see as weakness) and loath [sic] women who choose traditional roles."
As I said in a comment over there:
We do not hate femininity. We hate the cult of femininity.
Anyone who's seen me dress up for a concert or an opera, for example, knows full well that I, a feminist, do not hate femininity. I like wearing pretty dresses. I like looking at women in pretty dresses. I like to bake and do needlepoint. I sing soprano. My wallpaper has flowers on it. But I object to the idea that this is all that my life should consist of or that it's what every woman's life should consist of.
Nor do I hate women who choose to work in traditionally female occupations. I don't think that by doing so they are reversing women's progress. I think that Patrice Lewis (author of the article), Phyllis Schlafly, Jennie Chancey (founder of Ladies Against
The cult of femininity, on the other hand, does believe these things. It believes that all women not only like dresses and homemaking, but are biologically determined to, and that those who do not are freaks or denying their true nature. (See Fannie's post for excellent explanation.) In the cult of femininity, my dress-wearing, baking, flowery self would not be welcome because I have a purple belt in jujitsu, like war films, and kick the figurative asses of most of the guys in my local Quizbowl league. Oh, and I don't think that my sex makes me weak or subordinate. Of course, you'll hear advocates of this cult say that they think both women and men are people - they're just fundamentally different! Women are supposed to complement men! Ah yes, I say, a lot of complementing was I doing at the dojo today when I threw four guys to the ground or the wall repeatedly. Guess I'm just a freak.
Someone who believes in the cult of femininity does not believe that women and men are people, with sex coming secondary to the qualities that make them a person. Sex comes first and foremost.
Not only that, but this cult does see homemakers as reversing women's progress - and they think that's a good thing. Women who choose to stay at home, however feminist they might be, are held up as mute examples by people who would like to take away their opportunity to choose it by making it their only option. The idea of individual choice - a choice that affects you and maybe your immediate familiars, but not other people - doesn't seem to exist here. (You'll recall that these are the same people who try to argue that gay people having sex is affecting society in some nebulous way.)
We do not hate babies or embryos. We hate the cult of babies and embryos.
Personal disclosure: I have a baby cousin. She is only three weeks old and very soft and cute and I love her already. I have been told, in fact, that I'm a natural with babies. Yet I'm to the point where there are large corners of the Internet where seeing a picture of a baby makes me flinch because I know it's going to be an anti-choice ad.
I'm sure a lot of the people who put up these ads don't see an overlap between feminists and women who have abortions, since, you'll remember, feminists are evil man-hating unsexed freaks and women who have abortions are coerced since all real women want babies. Even the moderate narrative holds that women who have abortions just don't want children. This is incorrect. 61% of women who have an abortion already have children. 66% plan to have children later in life. Obviously it's not about hatred of children. Some feminists (gasp!) even have them. But the embryo-cultists have never let little things like facts stop them.
This is another arena where the concept of individual choice seems to be absent. The idea that a woman might not want children for herself and still support allowing others to have them is unthinkable, as is the converse - a rabid pro-choice activist who has ten children is Bringing Society in the Right Direction even if she's going to raise them all to be rabid pro-choice activists.
The same people that love to scream about LGBT people getting "special rights" (like marriage equality, protection from terrorism, and the right to work - rights that everyone else has) view embryos - babies, if they prefer, since whether or not the embryo is a person is irrelevant - not as equal to born human beings, but as more than born human beings. It's had to be stated too many times, but evidently it still needs repeating: bestowing personhood on an embryo would not give it the right to use another person's body without her consent, because no person has that right.
As anyone who spends even a little time looking at American politics is surely aware, it is the Christian religion that dominates right-wing politics in this country. This is the same Christian religion that, depending on where you like to start your story, began with an all-powerful deity using the body of a woman without her consent. In trying to give to a "baby" a power that, in their religion, is the province of God, the religious right is literally deifying the embryo.
We do not hate "traditional marriage." We hate the cult of "traditional marriage."
"Traditional marriage." Used to mean so many different things. Are we against those things? Read on!
Many feminists are straight or bisexual. Many of those feminists have opposite-sex partners. Many of those feminists are married to their opposite-sex partners. Do feminists hate opposite-sex marriage? No.
Many feminist women are homemakers. As discussed above, when it's about individual choice and not a position forced on a woman by society, we don't really have a problem with it. Do feminists hate opposite-sex marriage where the wife is a homemaker? I don't think so.
On the other hand, we do hate the movement that puts "traditional marriage" on a pedestal in order to deny other people the right to marry, and implies that domestic violence and child molestation are water under the bridge because the most important thing is for a child to have parents of different sexes. (Which is essentialist, see above, etc.)
The other oft-used synonym for "traditional marriage" is "Biblical marriage," and that strikes closer to the heart of what these people are really going for. Because "Biblical marriage" refers to opposite-sex marriage, yes. But does it refer to marriage between "one man and one woman"? No. It refers to marriage that is a relationship between a man and his property rather than a relationship between two people who love each other - a relationship where the female partner has no rights, whether they be to property, to her own children, to protection from rape and beating. Do feminists hate that? Yes, we do. And so, I'm sure, do a lot of the people who claim to be in favor of "traditional marriage."
One of the progressive movement's greatest obstacles, whatever the specific cause, is that the market of ideas is dominated by conservative euphemisms and lies. From abortion rights ("90% of abortions are done days before birth because the girl wants to fit into her prom dress!!1!!!" - and "pro-abortion" too, in case you needed a reminder about the idea of individual choice not existing) to taxation ("socialism"), one often has to make an effort just to speak neutrally about the issues because the buzzwords are part of common parlance. Don't let "traditional marriage" be one of them.
In entirely unrelated news, why did I not know about this? (Read also: David's post here, making the excellent point that while President Obama's made some progress disengaging from the Israeli right, he hasn't linked up in any way with the Israeli left, which has kept it ineffective.)