Feminism is Ruining Our Society – Conservative Article
Women aren’t happy. In this day and age, they can do everything the man can; get the same jobs as men; vote; get the same level of education; sometimes even earn more. But the statistics show that women are unhappy and that depression among young females is growing. Not long ago, the BBC produced an article suggesting that suicide among women in Japan is at its highest.
The assumption that women are unhappy because of the patriarchy is a ridiculous statement. It’s often the loneliness and lack of stability that drives that. Research shows that women in stable relationships are happier than single women. Yet, it seems that the drive for women remaining single and focusing on employment is very capitalistic in nature; women in workplaces mean more labour force and cheaper wages. As the amount of women who stay at home is lower, the competition for the cosiest office jobs is higher.
This, in turn, makes things more complicated for poorer men, who may like to advance their career but aren’t able to. We already know that the worst-performing group in the UK, education-wise, are working-class men. They cannot fight against well-educated women, who are being told they’re oppressed and most workplaces now have gender quotas to fill.
But that’s not all – this is not just about men.
We should also consider women’s needs. Satisfaction from personal achievement is higher when actually deserved. How would you feel if you know that you only got your job based on the fact that someone has to fill the gender requirement, as opposed to based on your skills? Doesn’t that reduce you solely to your sex, and not to who you represent as a person?
There are many faults with modern-day feminism and this is something that always bothers me. If you’re constantly being told that you’re oppressed, you start expecting things from people. This leads to entitlement which is extremely prevalent these days. What happened to the concept of achieving your goals with genuine hard work?
But there’s more. The statistics show that women tend to end up in poverty more often than men, especially single mothers. In this society, the drive on women to be independent is so strong, that many choose single-parenthood which deprives them of any financial satisfaction. How different things would be if a man provided for such a mother! And you can’t argue against the value of both parents being there for a child.
The concept of intersectionality is the most laughable idea I’ve ever heard of. If I felt oppressed over every single thing I am, I’d never get anything done, I’d just foster grievances. Every kind of woman is included in the concept of a ‘woman’. It would be ridiculous to not include black women with other women. But it seems that this is what intersectionality is fighting for.
I should probably mention that this article is, in part, a response to an article that was published on POI a while ago, with which I vehemently disagreed. To quote it “the woman being the main caregiver, a trophy wife, or merely the assistant and never the boss.” Now, there are more women CEOs than ever before. And I want to see more of them, as long as they’re capable and they have the required skills to succeed.
But to do so, they need traits that are generally considered male. Proof? One of the most recognised psychological tests is the Big Five. It tests agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience and extraversion. For a person to succeed in endeavours such as starting a business or climbing up the corporate ladder, the person needs to score high at conscientiousness and low at agreeableness.
Coincidentally, women score very high at agreeableness and neuroticism which means that they are not likely to succeed as CEOs. Now, the goal should be for women to be better at these elements, work harder towards changing their behaviour and be driven enough to succeed. But how can they do so if they believe they are oppressed?
On top of that, sadly, women are better caregivers and children require their mothers for correct development. If a person refuses to spend time with their child, they risk it to be poorly developed. I believe that we soon have a future where artificial wombs will make it easier for everyone so we can achieve a truly Huxlean universe, but until then, women should just do whatever they want to do and focus on how can they improve their own lives instead of trying to force others to change.
Written by Junior Conservative Writer, Dinah Kolka
Point of Information
Feminism is not the problem – A Liberal Response
This article by my colleague is embarrassing, hypocritical, and with no coherent argument against it. She fails to demonstrate any understanding of what feminism is in 2021; how it is a movement to better the lives of everyone, not just women. It appears to condemn women for simply making choices?
There are many things I could go into in this article. The conclusion that women end up as poor single mothers due to the unrelenting pressure of independence? The attack on the concept of intersectionality, then agreeing with the necessity of it in the next sentence? Saying that women are not working hard to become CEOs because they fell oppressed? Or being wistfully wishing to live in a dystopian universe? I’m baffled.
I’d like to focus on the argument that women’s educational and professional successes are at the direct detriment’s to specifically white working-class men.
Firstly, the main issue behind the underachievement of white working-class men is classism, to a far lesser extent race and gender. In a study funded by the Lambeth Council, the underachievement of white working-class boys can be summarised (but not limited to) the lack of aspiration amongst families; a lack of engagement with children’s schooling; marginalisation and a perceived loss of culture; the effects of poverty on achievement and schooling; low literacy levels and language deprivation; lack of targeted support.
And if you are to look specifically in the north, the rapid deindustrialisation that began under Margret Thatcher in the 80s is still causing huge consequences of lack of opportunities and post-industrial generational unemployment.
The breadth of subjects Dinah has tried to cover in this article is huge, and to paint the root causes of all these issues with the same brush labelled ‘feminism’ is lazy and inaccurate.
Written by Junior Liberal Writer, Lucy Severn
Feminism is flawed but not for any of these reasons and it is not ruining society – A Labour Article
I take many issues with many of the points that Dinah has raised in her article but will address only a few.
Firstly, feminism has not created a “fight” between men and women by encouraging and empowering more women to enter the workforce. It is not a competition, and everyone has the right to financial independence. Men do not have a greater claim to this.
Dinah asserts that well-educated women entering the workforce is detrimental to “poorer men” who are less educated. This issue here is that you’re pitting two groups against each other when in reality they’re not actually competing.
Regarding the point about job satisfaction and quotas, historically, many sectors of society have been denied jobs, pay rises, promotions due to their race, gender, sexuality, or class. People should be given jobs based on “genuine hard work” and qualifications but arguing this neglects that this hasn’t been happening.
My other concern is that Dinah has been very selective with her research, selecting only one study from 2001 to demonstrate her opinion. Equally, I could show just one study that asserts the opposite (courtesy of Frank Allen). Instead, I’ve taken the liberty of finding a meta-analysis containing 95 studies which suggests no significant difference between men and women in leadership roles.
The assertion that many women choose single parenthood because they are encouraged to be independent is problematic. Unevidenced, this point is not explored enough to look at the underlying factors involved in this. I’d like to add the caveat that choice is subjective, and a choice for lack of other options is worth challenging. If, indeed, it is the case that women choose single parenthood, this is the result of having the independence and autonomy that facilitates this.
Things such as owning property, having control of their own money, and being able to work in sectors with better pay are all things that have resulted from the fight for equal rights. These enable women to not be dependent on partners or family for financial support. This gives women more autonomy in situations of domestic violence or even an unhappy relationship. Furthermore, how do single fathers play into this scenario because financial stress and lack of stability is also a factor in their lives?
Likewise, the assertion that women are essential to the development of children dangerously plays into gender stereotypes that men are incapable of caregiving and that it is the only thing women are capable of. Studies have found that “strengths typically associated with married mother‐father families appear to the same extent in families with two mothers and potentially in those with two fathers.”
Finally, I want to end this response with my own criticism of feminism. Intersectionality is dismissed as “laughable” here, but it is essential. There are multiple sub-sections of feminism, some of which are flawed, just like in every ideology. White, middle-class feminism has become the default in many circles. It erases the additional struggles of factors such as class, race, sexuality, non-cis gender identity, and disability. It also neglects to focus on how men suffer under the patriarchy. We need to be more considerate and inclusive and listen to those with different experiences.
Written by Junior Labour Writer, Zoë Olsen-Groome