This has already had some of the more egregious inaccuracies and fallacies addressed. Most notably by Amanda and JJ.
At issue was the discordant assertion that the rise of feminism is somehow the direct cause of the destruction of the nuclear family. The arguments put forward are weak, to say the least, and are reminiscent of those spewed out by Mark Steyn and other such odious characters.
I urge you to read both Amanda's and JJ's take while I hit upon something else which has not yet been addressed. The conclusion of the initially linked rambling diatribe.
The rise in feminism has allowed liberties and prosperity for women which could never be understood or realized in nations in the Middle East, which labour under the delusion that a juggernaut economy can be manufactured out of the diligence of the male work force [oil-rich nations like United Emirates notwithstanding]. At the same time, it is interesting to note that extreme social conservatism in the Middle East has staved off all of the ills which come with women's liberation, like higher crime, poverty rates based on income gaps between families, divorce and psychological dysfunction, and a host of other problems. One might say that feminism has been a "necessary evil", but insofar as that it has addressed the inequities of women, the ideology has fallen far short in addressing the socio-economic inequalities it has created, and erroneously blames it on white male-European entrenchment.What absolute rubbish.
I used to live in the Middle East. Clearly the author of the above passage has never even been there. Presumably the author is talking about Arab states with a dominant Islamic culture since Israel's reliance on its relatively liberated female population to sustain that nation is greater than that of many western cultures.
The only thing restraining women in the Middle East is men. They do it using a grossly misinterpreted religious text and punitive laws intended to subjugate women. There is a women's movement throughout the region and they take great risks in an effort to break down the barriers imposed by a brutal patriarchy. They rely heavily on association with western women's equality movements to sustain themselves since, as exemplified by the last link, exposure often results in savage punishment.
... nations in the Middle East, which labour under the delusion that a juggernaut economy can be manufactured out of the diligence of the male work force [oil-rich nations like United Emirates notwithstanding].Where are we talking about here? That is a dangerous generalization.
In the "oil-rich" Mid-East the bulk of the labour force is not native but imported foreign labourers. In other Mid-East countries a large number of women work. And the only juggernaut economies are the oil states. A few are even starting to recognize that women need to be included at all levels of society. Bahrain, for example, when no woman was elected to parliament during the last national vote, appointed six women to the Shura council.
Kuwait has had universal suffrage, including women, since 2005 and was the third of the Persian Gulf states to appoint a female cabinet minister.
Oman, a country I am very familiar with, has had universal suffrage since 2003 and has three female cabinet ministers. Women occupy all levels of the civil service and (oh geez, brace yourself) are not permitted to cover their faces in public office. (Yes, the country is has an Islamic canon of laws; No, the law is not being broken).
What is it that is not understood or realized in those states?
At the same time, it is interesting to note that extreme social conservatism in the Middle East has staved off all of the ills which come with women's liberation, like higher crime, poverty rates based on income gaps between families, divorce and psychological dysfunction, and a host of other problems.Really?! With no elaboration or source there is very little to support that belief. In fact, I'd go so far as to call that false. Again, a generalization
Would you like to see income gaps between families? Go to Saudi Arabia where the princes are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer as the per capita GDP is shrinking.
Do you really believe that comment on "higher crime"? Let me show you Syria.
Divorce? Do you think you have the answer to that? Let me take you for a trip through Yemen.
Under Shari'a-based law and social custom as practiced in the country, men are permitted to take as many as four wives, although very few do so. Legally the minimum age of marriage is 15; however, the law largely is not enforced, and some girls marry as early as age 12. In 2001, the Women's National Committee proposed an amendment to increase the minimum age for marriage to 18.Notice which group is trying to have law written to prevent female children being compelled to marry. Yeah, those damned feminists again.
Shari'a-based law also requires that the wife must obey the husband. She must live with him at the place stipulated in the contract, consummate the marriage, and not leave the home without his consent. Husbands may divorce wives without justifying their action in court; however, courts routinely mandate lengthy reconciliation periods prior to granting the husband's petition for divorce. A woman has the legal right to divorce; however, she must provide a justification, such as her husband's nonsupport, impotence, abrogation of the marriage contract (for example, violating guarantees regarding her education or employment options), or taking of a second wife without her consent. A woman seeking a divorce also must repay a portion of her bride price, which creates an additional hardship.So, divorce doesn't happen all that much. I suppose the above is what you were referring to. Isn't that a pleasant state of affairs.
Of course, places like Jordan have solved the problem of divorce. Just kill the bitch.
Let's get into the psychological dysfunction that is apparently so high in the west because of feminism and which the author insists is lower in places where the feminists haven't had their way.
Self-immolation is the terrible choice of hundreds of Afghan women every year. Trapped in unhappy marriages or hemmed in by a conservative Islamic society, they take an appalling escape route: dousing themselves in household fuel, closing their eyes, and striking a match. Most are between 16 and 20 years old, say doctors.Suicide. By fire. Think about that... just for a sickening minute. Then tell me how much the ills of women's liberation have been staved off.
Let's take the last line of the offending post.
One might say that feminism has been a "necessary evil", but insofar as that it has addressed the inequities of women, the ideology has fallen far short in addressing the socio-economic inequalities it has created, and erroneously blames it on white male-European entrenchment.Necessary evil? Oh those goddamned feminist nazis! Let's chalk that turn of phrase up to a Freudian slip and then conclude this properly.
Feminism hasn't created socio-economic inequalities. Over the course of centuries, feminism, which didn't start with the end of WW2 or with the cancellation of Leave It To Beaver, has always benefited society. Feminism has the effect of highlighting the worst of social ills and correcting them for women, men, children and sometimes, animals. A British soldier of today would still be living the life of his 18th Century antecedent if it hadn't been for a feminist.
What the author of the offending post fails to recognize and admit is that it has always been male dominion which the men have sought to retain. Feminism threatens that and that alone. As Amanda so aptly pointed out:
Keeping women in familial servitude served a lot of men very well, and there’s no doubt that there’s going to be some moaning that this privilege is fast fading, but it’s a matter of priorities. Women’s rights trumps men’s comforts and pleasures, and all the hysterical language describing the latter as “broken families” doesn’t change that.So, no, Raph, we don't agree with you... at all. You might want to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect while you're wiping yourself off.