The Antidote to Feminism is not Anti-Feminism
A reasoned, individualist approach to today’s widening gender divide
I came across a video on Instagram that sparked my attention because of the radical viewpoint expressed by the young woman featured in the video. The subject of the video deals with feminism, and whether women deserve the same rights as men. In her view, women don’t, because they do not seek out the “hard jobs” men do. She says that until women begin working on oil fields, serving on the “front lines of the military,” and applying to be electricians, she does not believe women deserve the same rights as men. She explains that once women begin tackling these career paths, “...then we should have equal rights.”
No matter what your social or political beliefs are, chances are you can view this perspective as a radical one. And definitely one that goes against an American view of law. My following treatment of this woman’s argument is indeed a rebuttal, so it may get me branded as a “feminist.” This usually happens when I attempt to offer a logical framework to politically-charged ideas, no matter what type of party member I’m speaking with. However, I’m seeing these radical views, expressing the notion that taking away women’s rights (for various reasons) is a good thing—and much of it is touted by women. Because I’m seeing this more and more, and I want to offer my take on it.
The Nature of American Rights
Before I can get into why this woman’s views are so problematic, I want to briefly go over the unique legal framework of America. It isn’t like any other legal framework anywhere else in the world. As an American, I wake up every morning thankful I was born in this country specifically because of its unique view of law.
America is a nation of individual rights. It’s not a nation that recognizes rights in any collective manner, whether based on gender, race, religion, or socio-economic background. As a matter of fact, our Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in our constitution, expressly protects these rights. This point is so important, I want to reiterate it. The constitution protects our rights we already have based on the fact that we are living, breathing human beings. It doesn’t grant them to us.
Also, our country is based on a specific type of right—negative rights. This is where we differ the most from every other country in the world. While most other countries are built on positive rights, so, the right to things (like a college education, medical care, etc.), we are a nation built on negative rights. Basically, my rights end where yours begin, and vice versa. Because of the philosophy of negative rights, governments can’t legally coerce or force us into doing things we don’t morally agree with. Our fellow citizens can’t force us into doing things we don’t morally agree with either. Negative rights recognize the essential fact that coercion and force can not be used against us in matters of the State, and in private matters when it comes to fellow citizens.
In the Declaration of Independence, one of our nation’s founding documents, Thomas Jefferson, the document’s writer, states that we have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I italicized pursuit because it’s important to understand that word from the context of when Thomas Jefferson wrote it. In the late 1700s, the word pursuit was associated with the word work. So within these words, he’s saying people have the inherent right to work towards happiness as their ultimate goal, with life and liberty as its essential tenets. In America, we don’t have the right to a house, we have the unencumbered right to pursue every career option available to us to secure a home for our families. Likewise, we have the right to pursue, or freely work for, the things that not only keep us alive and give us life, but that help us thrive. That’s why the word “happiness” in the Declaration of Independence is so revolutionary. No other country has ever recognized the importance of leaving humans alone so we can be free not just to survive, but to thrive.
Now, these rights are being eroded every day. But that’s subject matter for an entirely different article.
I thought it crucial to make these points before I continue because it’s important to have a sound philosophical understanding of American rights, especially since they are so philosophically different from the view of rights in other countries.
While other countries view rights as privileges that are granted and taken away by the government, a proper outlook on American rights views those rights as fundamental, reality-based, and as things that can’t be taken away.
A Slippery Slope
When the woman in the video says things like equal work-equal rights, or until women accomplish certain things, they shouldn’t have equal rights to men, she’s actually wrong to use the term “rights.” Rights are something that can’t be taken away, privileges, however, are. So what she is really insinuating is that she views rights as privileges, which is a deeply anti-American way of looking at our legal system.
While she makes note that women do not choose to apply for the “hard jobs” like that of an employee on an oil rig or electricity company or the U.S. government’s military, she fails to note that while women don’t often apply for these jobs (though some do), there are many men who don’t either. It begs the question, if women are supposed to lose privileges because they choose to be say, teachers, or mothers, instead, do men who choose to be professors, or data analysts, or entrepreneurs, also have to see their privileges revoked too? Or do they get a pass because they are working with the proper hardware underneath their clothes? Or is it because enough men do the dirty jobs (as Mike Rowe puts it), so they’re covered? If that’s so, then how many women need to be employed in dirty jobs before we are covered?
Do you see how quickly the slope gets super slippery with this line of thinking? I could continue down this sinkhole if I wanted to.
Her version of America is devastatingly darwinian, with a might over right attitude and a brawn over brain outlook. Let me clarify, I’m not saying these jobs she highlights don’t require smarts. Farmers are some of our country’s most important people when it comes to our very livelihood. That job requires an immense amount of both muscle and intelligence. However, when this woman takes a completely reductionist approach to these jobs, isolating the muscle component as the only one she’s interested in (both her and her co-star reference upper body strength as their first concern), therefore tricking audiences into thinking that’s the only component that exists, she’s setting society up for complete disaster. And the proof of this can be found in other countries across the world.
The Global State of Women’s Rights
Imagine if we told women they don’t have as many rights as men because they lack the upper body strength. Now imagine if we told a man who wished to be an artist rather than a soldier that he will not have as many rights because he chose the wrong occupation.
As crazy as this sounds, this is how much of the world operates. And importantly, this is how some of the bloodiest, most life-destroying governments of history operated.
The Soviet Union, one of history’s terrible communist regimes, assigned occupations to its citizens. Most did not get to choose their careers.
Today, in middle eastern countries, women who shame families by failing to meet impossible social standards are victims of honor killings.
What do these societies have in common? These societies and their governments view rights as privileges that can be taken away. And women are the first victims of this dangerous mentality.
Many times, when this subject is brought up to me, others make the case for unequal rights among the sexes because men still have to deal with the awful monster that is the military draft looming over their heads. But the fact that this evil still exists for one sex doesn’t mean we expand it to both. The truth of the matter is this, the draft should be permanently abolished. No more selective service process. No more threat of the draft hanging over young men’s heads as they helplessly watch politicians squander money, foreign policy, and freedom. Men, and women, do not belong to the State. Men, and women, belong to themselves.
Go Ahead, Give Up Your Rights
The good news for the woman in the video is this, she can stop expressing her rights at any time if she feels she shouldn’t have equal rights to men. I’ll even help her out, and suggest some rights she could theoretically give up. She can stop going on camera and utilizing free speech, as protected by the first amendment, to champion her dystopian, darwinian views. She can stop using credit cards, because I bet she didn't need to have a man sign for her to apply and get approved for one. But, up until 1974 in America, women had to have a man’s approval. If she owns a house or a car, give that up, because up until around 1900, many women weren’t allowed to own property in America. In many countries today, that is still the case. She’s free to go live in any country of her choosing that doesn’t support equality under the eyes of the law, and there’s plenty to choose from. Also, in this upcoming election, she could abstain from voting, which wouldn’t have been possible for her anyway until 1920. Does she feel men who don’t fit her criteria for total “rights” granted should have to give up some rights too?
Yes, it is true men built this country. And they continue to build it—they build houses, cars, infrastructure, airplanes. These amazing men should get far more credit for the human flourishing they naturally promote by way of their job than they get. And no one can argue against the fact that these industries are male dominated. And no, it isn’t by force. Women can indeed apply for any job they like. Men obviously can too. But just as some women choose the career of professional athlete, others choose to be a nurse. Just as some men join the military or do decide to work on an oil rig, others become writers, lawyers, or businessmen. We should never punish someone, especially with the evil of taking away their rights, because of any career path they choose.
An Individualist Approach is the Proper Approach
While the video put a damper on my mood, the comments section was worse. Most jumped right on board with this woman’s rhetoric. Many are men who are fed up with “feminists.” And I get it. While the first wave of feminism secured women’s right to vote, more recent waves of feminism have only divided the sexes and created a power vacuum that glorifies the victimhood of women against their supposed bogeyman oppressor, men.
But you don’t fight one illogical ideology by adopting a different, but equally illogical ideology.
You fight all of this inflammatory rhetoric, and quite frankly, terribly dangerous ideas, with the philosophy this country was founded on, and that is the philosophy of individualism.
We are a country of individual rights. We recognize the sanctity of the individual. We recognize the sovereignty of the individual, and all his or her choices, values, and rights.
The answer isn’t feminism (there are no true feminists left anyway, or else they’d have a lot to say about the oppression of women in the middle east). The answer isn’t inflammatory rhetoric involving the taking away of women’s rights, no matter how many views it gets. The answer was, always is, and always will be, Individualism.
If some wish to call me a feminist because of this belief, that is fine. I can’t control what people say about me anymore than I can control the weather. But people who may label me, and have labeled me in the past, a feminist miss the mark. It’s individualism and individual rights I champion. The day I hear “Individualist,” not “feminist,” following the introduction of my name, is the day I claim moral and philosophical victory.
Also, as a total political orphan, if this post ruffles the feathers of all political parties in some way, I’ll consider that a win too ;)
As a man who never quite understood "Feminism", I get what you're saying. As a man who took to heart the wise words of an individualistic women, she was a tomboy who's femininity won out, advised that on the flip side of masculinity there is a feminine that must be acknowledged.
Hi Rebecca, An interesting piece about an interesting topic! Do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions to clarify your points in my mind?
First, you seem to be saying that if individualism were thoroughly accepted, feminism would be redundant. Is that your view? Is there no room for feminism in a society with an individualist legal framework?