Part of the series ‘Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering’
Index and preamble for series
The ideological foundation of Second-wave Feminism
Second-wave Feminism is (as are most other forms of feminism) firmly rooted in communism and in the prevalence throughout history of socialism and its never-changing goal, Utopia, Paradise on Earth. Communism can be made impervious to all criticism, by giving it a name that makes it untouchable, say, Feminism. Communism and any other ideology become intrepid, as soon as they assume the label or even only the appearance of being an aspect of feminism.
“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.”
— Catharine A. MacKinnon,
in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, 1989
First Harvard University Press. Page 10.
“When I was in college it was the McCarthy era and that made me a Marxist.”
— Gloria Steinem
in Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1983.
»Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class hatred. Feminism’s business is fashioning weapons to be used against men in society, education, politics, law and divorce court. The feminist aim is to overthrow “patriarchal tyranny.” In this undertaking, the male’s civil rights count for no more than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany.«
— What civil rights has wrought
By Paul Craig Roberts, July 26, 2000
Townhall.com – Creators Syndicate
Any student of history who is only slightly familiar with the evolution of communism and the prevalence throughout history of socialism and its never-changing goal, Utopia, Paradise on Earth, will have no problem with recognizing Second-wave Feminism, the complaints and recommendations in The Feminine Mystique, and the resulting 1966 agenda of NOW for what they all are: manifestations of communism, mission statements and lists of objectives for the re-engineering of society and civilization.
Wherever and whenever such a massive remaking of the existing order was called for and implemented, it involved deconstructing the existing social system. From the resulting ruins and rubble of society, whatever was necessary was then to be salvaged and to be used for the construction of a better socialist regime.
»The radical feminists agreed with the Marxists that the goal was a classless society, but the feminist revolution would do away with sex classes, through “control of reproduction.” Really radical thinkers, like Peter Beckman and Francine D’Amico consider that the labels men and women create fictitious beings and perpetuate inequality.
Marxism should have died with the fall of the Berlin wall, but O’Leary found that it is still alive on some American campuses. Why? One professor answered this question by saying that atheists need something to believe in…..«
— Book Review by David Dooley
Shedding light on five gender mentality
Dale O’Leary, The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality
Lafayette, Louisiana: Vital Issues Press, 1997. 213 pp.
More: The Gender Agenda
Socialism, communism, the deconstruction of the family and the reconstruction of society to achieve the construction of a great, socialist, (if possible) totalitarian regime
In contemplating how we got from communism to Second-wave Feminism (that was the sort that ‘The Feminine Mystique’ catered to and helped to launch), was it not necessary to have First-wave Feminism before we could proceed to Second-wave Feminism? I wondered what Wikipedia had to say about First-wave Feminism.
»First-wave feminism was a period of feminist activity and thought, that occurred within the time period of the 19th and early 20th century throughout the world.[where?] It focused on legal issues, primarily on gaining women’s suffrage (the right to vote).
The term first-wave was coined in March 1968 by Martha Lear writing in The New York Times Magazine, who at the same time also used the term “second-wave feminism“. At that time, the women’s movement was focused on de facto (unofficial) inequalities, which it wished to distinguish from the objectives of the earlier feminists.« More at Wikipedia
There is of course much more about all of that, but it bothers me that Wikipedia does not address the ocean of feminism that existed since before the ancestors of Man came down from the trees and started to walk upright (for which reason they were given the name, though quite recently, ‘Homo Erectus’).
Take for instance,
The Liberator (Mar/Apr issue 2000)
Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson
Frank Zepezauer, resident philosopher
»Have you ever heard of the National Congress of Mothers? Until recently I didn’t know about them myself and I’ve spent a lot of time studying women’s organizations. It so happens that the NCM was actually the biggest women’s lobby in American history. Founded during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, it had 190,000 members by 1920 and over one million by 1930. The National Organization for Women, even in its heyday, could never claim such numbers….
Who created the housewife role?
What are these misperceptions? The first is that the women’s movement of the 19th Century was like its 20th Century counterpart, an effort to liberate women from the bondage of housewifery.
The facts show exactly the opposite. Women’s organizations throughout that century fought to liberate women not from the kitchen but from the workplace….« More
Well, there are many things wrong with what Wikipedia states about the history of feminism, mainly the allusion that feminism did not begin to make waves until “within the time period of the 19th and early 20th century throughout the world.”
You may not think that it is worth worrying about any of that, but many others and I do. Communism has been around for as long as civilization, and feminism for much longer than that. Communism affects all of us, and, since even the feminists insist that “communism and feminism are one,” (as the Russians can ascertain, because they had a very feminist boss who threatened not-quite-so but almost equally feminist JFK and all of the US for an intense period of time), it is debatable whether in the symbiosis of socialism and feminism, feminism is not far more deadly than communism. (In case you wonder what feminism did for Russia, Russian men live now on average about ten fewer years than their women do, largely and most definitely thanks to feminist Nikita Khrushchev).
Rudyard Kipling would have said so. He more or less forgot to include that aspect of the circumstances in his poem, ‘The Female of the Species’. So, when anyone contemplates the symbiosis of socialism and feminism, never forget, as Kipling warned in his poem,
»That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.«
— Rudyard Kipling, last line of
The Female of the Species
For those who wonder, and I won’t steal my thunder in revealing that right now, the road traveled by modern communism (a variant of socialism) was traveled arm-in-arm with feminism, first,
• radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist-feminism, incorrectly called 1st-wave feminism; a.k.a. “communism in drag”), then
• radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist-feminism, incorrectly called 2nd-wave feminism; a.k.a. “communism in drag”), then
• radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist-feminism, incorrectly called many sort of feminism, but a.k.a. “communism in drag”).
There you are. It is all quite simple. The symbiosis of communism and feminism, by any other name, still is the same.
Still, if that does not satisfy, here is more: Feminism? You want feminism? Which brand would you like?
Betty Friedan was one of the founders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a co-author of the original 1966 Agenda of NOW. Judging from some of the statements that the original Agenda of NOW contains, it may seem that what feminism was about in those days was nothing more than an attempt to get women a place in the sun. The 1966 Agenda of NOW stated:
“NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.” [my emphasis —WHS]
It was further stated that:
“With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child-rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part of most women’s lives-still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and economic participation and advance.” and that,
“We do not accept the traditional assumption that a woman has to choose between marriage and motherhood, on the one hand, and serious participation in industry or the professions on the other.” and further,
“WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility–hers, to dominate–his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of “half-equity” between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes. [my emphasis —WHS]
That does not sound so bad at first glance, but that was just the bait for the hook. The switch followed. Regardless of what it sounds like, it is but one way by which to attempt to entice women, the majority of whom are found in poll after poll to prefer to be stay-at-home, married moms, to enter the work force. Why would anyone promote an idea that most women don’t like? The answer to that question may be found in the fact that the goal to bring women into the work force is an ancient goal of communism and that, as Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz states in his new book “Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique,” Betty Friedan was well into her thirties a devout and active functionary of the Communist Party of the U.S.A..
This overview of Betty Friedan’s life and circumstances contains more: comments by her ex-husband, his observations and experiences that describe an extremely violent woman whose rages were often totally out of control, details of her life steeped in the promotion of Marxist ideology, and much more.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels stated in the Communist Manifesto:
The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited cooperatively and naturally can’t think of anything else but that the lot of cooperatives will also affect the women as well….
The communists have been accused, furthermore, that they want to abolish the fatherland, the national identity. The workers don’t have a fatherland. It isn’t possible to rob them of what they don’t have. Because the proletariat must first of all conquer political rule, elevate itself to a national class (45), constitute itself as a nation, it will itself be national, even though by no means in the meaning of the bourgeoisie.
— Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
Manifesto of the Communist Party
Published as a single brochure in London, England in February/March 1848
Translation from the last edition of the
German text provided by Friedrich Engels in 1890
Nobody should have any illusions that the feminists consider any of the ideas presented in the Communist Manifesto to be outdated and archaic. The feminists use it as their bible. Erin Pizzey tells, when she speaks of her experiences with the radical feminists that usurped the women’s shelter movement, that a commonly-stocked book on their book shelves was Mao’s Little Red Book, and that Mao’s face was ever-present on posters in their living rooms. Mao most definitely based his ideas on the Communist Manifesto.
Do Betty Friedan’s and NOW’s objectives differ from, say, Mao tse tung’s? This is what Mao had to say about the structure of society with respect to the family:
“A man in China is usually subjected to the domination of three systems of authority [political authority, clan authority and religious authority]…. As for women, in addition to being dominated by these three systems of authority, they are also dominated by the men (the authority of the husband). These four authorities – political, clan, religious and masculine – are the embodiment of the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system, and are the four thick ropes binding the Chinese people, particularly the peasants. How the peasants have overthrown the political authority of the landlords in the countryside has been described above. The political authority of the landlords is the backbone of all the other systems of authority. With that overturned, the clan authority, the religious authority and the authority of the husband all begin to totter…. As to the authority of the husband, this has always been weaker among the poor peasants because, out of economic necessity, their womenfolk have to do more manual labour than the women of the richer classes and therefore have more say and greater power of decision in family matters. With the increasing bankruptcy of the rural economy in recent years, the basis for men’s domination over women has already been undermined. With the rise of the peasant movement, the women in many places have now begun to organize rural women’s associations; the opportunity has come for them to lift up their heads, and the authority of the husband is getting shakier every day. In a word, the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system is tottering with the growth of the peasants’ power.”
— Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan
(March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 44-46.
The Little Red Book, Chapter 31. WOMEN, Full text
[It’s only a little more than one page.]
Just in case you should be wondering what the aim of all of this was, it is no more than what Marx and Engels wanted, and what today’s feminists clamor for: the liberation of women from the drudgery of housework and from the raising of children. But why would anybody be intent on launching social revolutions over that and to turn all of society on its head? Well, the answer is in the rest of Chapter 31 of The Little Red Book. Here are just two more quotes from that chapter.
“[In agricultural production] our fundamental task is to adjust the use of labour power in an organized way and to encourage women to do farm work.”
Our Economic Policy (January 23, 1934), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 142.
“With the completion of agricultural coöperation, many co-operatives are finding themselves short of labour. It has become necessary to arouse the great mass of women who did not work in the fields before to take their place on the labour front….China’s women are a vast reserve of labour power. This reserve should be tapped in the struggle to build a great socialist country.”
Introductory note to
Solving the Labour Shortage by
Arousing the Women to Join in Production (1955),
The Socialist Upsurge in China’s Countryside, Chinese ed., Vol. II.
The creation of the U.S.S.R. brought about the abolition of marriage, with a vengeance. That was exactly what Marx and Engels had called for, and the Bolsheviks followed that prescription to the letter. Anyone who wished to become ‘unmarried’ merely had to go to the local magistrate, declare his intention, pay five kopecks (in purchasing power roughly the equivalent of a nickel at the time), and walk out with a divorce certificate.
It soon became obvious that neither Marx and Engels nor the Bolsheviks had understood the importance of marriage, and that marriages are essential for making any society function well. The hasty abolition of marriage turned into a social catastrophe of massive proportions.
Free love, as the early communists called it, is today called sexual freedom, but it it is not a good foundation for a well-functioning society. (See The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926)
In the long run, the USSR (and its affiliated nations) never recuperated from the escalating social chaos that it had caused for itself by its early family-hostile policies. For instance, the population of the Russian Federation is currently about 145 million and is estimated to have shrunk in 2050 by about 50 million. Incredibly, though, the Russian divorce laws were imported, verbatim, to the USA in the mid-1940s and became, through the efforts of feminist law societies, part of family-hostile legislation and law in the USA, from where they were then exported to all nations in the so-called “free” West. (See this history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws.)
In the last days of his regime, Hitler had these thoughts on disfranchising parents (especially fathers but even more so bachelors who refused to become fathers) but with the aim of producing new human material for the construction of a bigger and better German army. Do the social reformers currently in power in the developed nations have goals that are any different? (More: Daughter vs. father when the State becomes parent )
Throughout history, the place of women in society changed much to fit political expediency and the role of men in relation to women, but it took an extremist form of socialism to separate women from their role as mothers within families, and with men as protectors and providers within those very same families.
Second-wave Feminism managed to set that goal and make the efforts to bring that about without coercion by the state in the free West a reality. Who needs coercion by the state when women want what no state ever could bring about. In 1917, that became the new reality for women in USSR and it satellites. In 1966, Marxist feminists set the stage in the free rest of the World to make it happen there, too. They called it Second-wave Feminism, and it did not take a communist conquest to make it happen, it took radical feminism under another name. That is power of persuasion!
It should by now be abundantly obvious that the feminist social engineering – since Second-wave Feminism came on the scene in the mid-1960s – resulted in the systematic and endemic marginalization of fathers and families. That produced much harm and considerable social decay, not much different from what had happened in the few years after the Bolshevik revolution took place. The program for the re-engineering of society took longer, because of the trappings of democracy, but it happened just as irresistibly, and it was a Marxist revolution just the same.
It’s official: The experiment has failed
For the best part of thirty years we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in : the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children.
— Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, by Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS
The earliest experiment in modern history to abolish the two-parent. married-couple family in the USSR was a massive failure. That was never a secret. We knew about it early on and should have learned from it; the USSR did and tried corrective actions but never succeeded with alleviating the terrible consequences of those early anti-family policies.
We refused to learn from the experiences of the USSR with the experiment to abolish marriage, because the failure of the USSR did not end the symbiosis of communism and feminism in the rest of the world.
“If at first you don’t succeed, try, and try again,” but when such exercises in futility fail to bring the desired results, they are frequently described with this definition of insanity (often wrongly attributed to Einstein): “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” except, that does not describe insanity, it describes the futility of repeating a course of action that does not, cannot and will not produce the desired results.
The most effective course of action for alleviating a problem and its harmful consequences is to eradicate the cause of the problem. The cause of the failures of the experiments with the family is the symbiosis of two ideologies (communism and feminism) that proved themselves to be, time and again, dismal failures. The worst of that is, time and again we allowed those two ideologies to gain control over social evolution. We must put an end to doing what does not, cannot, and will not work out well.
Walter H. Schneider, 2018 02 26
The observations in this just scratched the surface. For a far more informative, exhaustive analysis of the issues of concern, well referenced and linked to sources, refer to the following:
The New Orthodoxy
In the last half century, feminist thought has become the received wisdom. Whereas the original feminists saw themselves as radicals and freethinkers, today their views have reached a level of such universal assent that feminism can be regarded as a new orthodoxy and contemporary dogma.
Whereas social theorists, public intellectuals and assorted professional damned fools routinely subject other ideologies, philosophies and political movements to sustained analytical critique, male thinkers generally let feminists off with little more than a patronising and approving pat on the head – thus ironically demonstrating precisely the kind of patronising chivalry that feminists, when they are not benefiting from it, usually purport to oppose!
“From The New York Times to the Christian Science Monitor, from Playboy to Newsweek, from Kissinger to McGovern, everyone was for Women’s Liberation. No marches of men were organized against them; a senator McCarthy oppressing Women’s Liberation was missing, the FBI did not lift a finger against them.”
The battle of the sexes thus became, as Ronald K Henry characterised it, “a war in which only one side showed up”.