Feminism and incivility

Incivility is the order of the day. And this incivility finds its roots in moralistic self-righteousness, which leads to a sense of urgency where any means are justified. Such people don’t even realize they’ve abandoned their values. That’s one reason why President Donald Trump’s supporters are willing to excuse anything he does.

Desert Botanical Gardens, Phoenix, Arizona. © Dave DuBay

But this phenomenon is not limited to the right. Decades ago second wave feminist and sometime Ms. magazine editor Robin Morgan said, “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”

Her sense of entitlement is noteworthy. Hatred is not excusable because someone is oppressed. Hatred is self-betrayal of what you say you stand for. And the claim that sweeping and derogatory generalizations about a group of people is not hate if you lack power is a paper thin rationalization.

Feminists today take to Twitter with hashtags like #menaretrash, #maletears, and #masculinitysofragile. They say they’re being ironic, but as I noted earlier this is a passive-aggressive excuse for dehumanizing half the human race.

Yes, there are feminists who oppose sexism in all forms, just as there are conservatives who are true to their beliefs. Double standards, however, are too often the case.

Progressives were outraged when Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted, “If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful? That’s our Syrian refugee problem.” But the truth is that he was repeating a feminist meme that said men instead of refugees (and M&Ms instead of skittles). Where was the progressive outrage then?

Worse, Lena Dunham recently called for the extinction of straight white men – a comment that rightly would be labeled fascist had it targeted any other group.

What is feminism?

Conservative columnist George Will left the Republican Party because of Donald Trump. And some feminists have left feminism to pursue more balanced gender equality instead. That’s integrity.


Feminism is about women’s self-interest. Usually this means promoting equality, but sometimes it means being anti-equality. For example, the National Organization for Women opposes shared parenting after divorce (but NOW has since deleted the link).

Feminists often don’t see this as a double standard because many of them believe that men arranged society to privilege men at women’s expense. But like most conspiracy theories this doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Throughout most of history men have not been privileged. Ancient kingdoms and empires were tyrannies run by small groups of men. The common man – the overwhelming majority of the male population – was a beast of burden and cannon fodder. The common man did gain rights before women, but the gap between universal male suffrage and universal female suffrage is less than a century.

We’ve yet to have a movement with a comprehensive focus on gender issues. And there won’t be anytime soon.


The most important question for Neil Gorsuch

Phoenix, Arizona

Resisting President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee is bound to be a losing game. The seat will be filled at some point, and Trump is not going to appoint a liberal justice.

But there are different strands of conservatism. George Will brings up an interesting question that should be asked of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

Quoting Lincoln, Will describes the Constitution as a frame of silver for a golden apple, which is the Declaration of Independence. That is, the Constitution details how we protect the Declaration’s ideal that everyone has equal natural rights.

Will criticizes President Reagan’s failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. Bork disparaged the ninth amendment, which says that there may be more rights than are explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Will also criticizes late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia‘s claim that democracy means majority rule with protection for “minorities only because the majority determines that there are certain minority positions that deserve protection.”

Scalia’s ideology seems to disparage natural rights. And certainly it ignores James Madison‘s statement that one purpose of the Constitution is that “the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.”

Scalia’s disregard for individual rights when the majority see fit not to grant these rights represents a powerful strand of conservatism – particularly social conservatism. And President Trump appears to be in this camp.

But other conservatives emphasize the word “unalienable” in the Declaration’s statement that everyone is “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” And considering Madison’s remarks in Federalist #51, the only way that Scalia-style conservatives can truly claim to be originalists is by denying that the Declaration of Independence is all that important to the Constitution which followed.

Will hopes that Gorsuch’s originalism will differ from Bork and Scalia’s by recognizing that natural rights are unalienable, meaning the majority can’t take them away. But note that is is about protecting natural rights, not the judiciary usurping Congress. This is Will’s conservatism.
We don’t yet know what kind of conservative Gorsuch is. I hope Congress asks him.