Are feminists only interested in towing the liberal party line and denying women equality ?

Question

Previously I have asked quite a few questions regarding feminism and their intentions.

So far, all I have witnessed is blatant sexism and anti-female sentiment when a female is appointed via a different political agenda is promoted and furthers her career.

Does this mean that feminists are not really that interested in equal opportunity (as they always state they are) but more interested in not only male-bashing but also female-bashing if they do not cow-tow to the feminist's liberal doctrine ?

Answer 1

I won't be voting Liberal this election.  Should I?  I'm so confused.

Of course I won't be voting for the Tories (egad!). Friggn' n***s.

I think I will vote for the NDP!

Answer 2

1992-1994:Development of a National Peak Body to represent women’s domestic violence service across Australia (WESNET) supported and funded by the Commonwealth Labor Government in Australia

Both sides of government can be either for or against women' equality. Feminists are for pro-equality, therefore are supportive of any government who promotes this.

To Locksmithite: Indoctrination! You show your true colours. Feminism is about the abolition of structural disadvantage caused by the indoctrination by "conservitives". It is the "conservitive's" that have created a society that promotes male privilage and sees men as holding positions of power above women. You claim that feminists only want to indoctinate people for their own ends, look into history and you will see that what you accuse feminism of is actually what "conservitive's" have been doing for centuries

Answer 3

Valid point and there you have unmasked those women who are quite happy to reap any benefits feminism may have helped create, but end up 'kow towing' to the male dominated white elite whose interests are still best met by propogating a system which enshrines their privilege.  Those liberal women collude with and are complicit in that system. Their take on class, race and sexuality issues is often patronising or totally ignorant in varying degrees.  They panic if feminism raises a more radical stance calling for emancipation from a male dominated societal system and all forms of oppression, as they believe 'material equality' will be enough to forgive the cultural and political inequality women deal with every day - whether they are aware of it or not!

Simply, not feminists, collaborators!

Answer 4

I'm glad that this election saw the first major female presidential candidate & the second major female VP candidate. But the funny thing about feminists is, most of us vote on the actual issues. For starters, Palin is very strongly pro-life.

Answer 5

"They panic if feminism raises a more radical stance calling for emancipation"

who's doing the emancipation though? It's all well and good if individuals self-emancipate themselves but what gives feminism the right to break down society and emancipate others just because its what YOU value not everyone.

Most are quite happy with the way things are, equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome so don't pretend it should. If men continue to dominate politics through competing equally with women for these positions then what gives you the right to tell society that they've made the "wrong choice". You don't speak for everyone, no ideological movement does.

"women who are quite happy to reap any benefits feminism may have helped create, but end up 'kow towing'"

As if they owe you something... you are not synonomous with equal rights, feminism just so happened to be the first to attain them. Egalitarianism preached the same doctrine of equal rights and opportunities but was quickly hijacked by feminism. So yea... don't think you can claim that one

Answer 6

I'm a VERY DEDICATED feminist, but do NOT adhere to a strictly "liberal" doctrine.

For example, there are many attempts at fear-mongering to scare women from voting for McCain/Palin.

I am a Yale-educated successful FEMALE attorney with 3 young children.  I will NOT stand by while one ENORMOUS ISSUE is pushed aside by men (and women alike) intent on hiding behind fears.  This country, in ALL of its history, has not once had a female president or vice president.  It took over 200 years for a female, Geraldine Ferraro, to be placed on the ticket as a vice president.  Women were told (by many men) to be afraid of her and the result was that the MAJORITY of women voted AGAINST her.

It took 24 more years, and entire generation, to get a woman on the ticket again!  No, I do NOT agree with EVERYTHING Palin stands for, but neither did I agree with EVERYTHING Hillary stood for.  But NOW is the time for a competent, hard-working, intelligent woman with integrity to be sent to Washington as President or, in this case, Vice President.  I will NOT "wait" until 2016!

I would have voted for Hillary.  I WILL vote for Palin.  And in 2012, I expect a Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton battle for President, where the outcome guarantees that the larger half of this country's gender will be represented once and for all!!!

I DO care about the issues.  And this is one issue from which I will NOT back away!

McCain/Palin in 2008.  Palin vs. Clinton in 2012.

Answer 7

We disagree with her. Does that mean we want to send her back home, barefoot and pregnant? Certainly not. We just don't want her as vice-president.

Answer 8

Feminists care about electing the best CANDIDATE - PERSON for the post of President and Vice President regardless of the candidate's gender, color, race, age, et cetera.

Answer 9

Feminists want politicians who protect women's interests.  Certain candidates, male or female, don't do that.  Most people don't vote for a person who doesn't protect their interests, regardless of gender.

Answer 10

as we all know, people on the left including feminists are all about indoctrination.

they are extremely hostile towards conservative viewpoints or actions because they disrupt the indoctrination process.

feminists are not problem solvers or equality dispensers. they are rabid marxist socialists who are pitting women against men to tear apart the family unit thus leaving children vulnerable to leftist indoctrination.

any woman who doesn't tow their party line is seen as the enemy and they will bash them as vigorously as they do men because they don't want other women to follow her example.

Answer 11

It is not that Palin is a republican that bothers me, it is the fact that she is so completely anti-woman. It's great that a woman has succeeded like that but she was so obviously picked solely because of her v****a and not merit, and she's a complete misogynist.

It would be ludicrous to support her simply because she is female, and it would be sexist besides.

Answer 12

Clinton was the second runner-up a dead-heat primary.  She is far from done. I hope she continues in politics and meets success.

I do believe in women's equality. But I've looked at Palin's voting record and it scares me to death. All she has to say on the environment has to do with more drilling. She has nothing to say on alternative fuels. She's a reactionary who would treat homosexuals like second class citizens and other women not much better. And she'd like to see a non-scientific approach taught to children in science class. I speak of course of creationism.

The only way I'd vote for her would be if it prevented her becoming secretary of the interior where she could wreak even more havoc with her lack of scientific thinking and obsession with drilling.