Belinda Brown: Feminism forgets that private life surpasses public life

Socially conservative women, those of us who place family and children at the centre, will, I hope dislodge feminism from its teetering political pedestal  and help provide an alternative, all embracing, more functional politics. A politics where families and individuals are at the heart of decision making  can be equally ambitious in scope because it has a point of reference to come back to. A centre of gravity. A politics that focuses on increasing GDP by getting mothers out to work, seems to have forgotten the point of itself.

Socially conservative women actually value and think that the private realm of community, family, domestic activity is of far more consequence and importance than the public realm of politics and work. The implications of this for feminism are far reaching. Read any earlier feminist texts and you find the whole foundation of feminism is built on the assumption that the public realm is the most important – and therefore women are subordinate because they participate less in this realm of politics and paid work. And because the public realm is assumed to be the most important, it is thought women are subordinated also in the private realm, this status follows from that.

But if you believe that the private realm is more important and what’s more you are more important and powerful here than any of the males around you, the fundamental assumption of feminism falls apart. Heck, it doesn’t matter if men have more status and power in the public realm because the public realm is there to serve the interests of the private and we know who is in charge of that. What is more, the pressure to compete with others, bring home the bacon, is often stressful, demanding and largely unpleasant and quite frankly it is why men don’t live as long.

But it goes further than that. Feminism has focused so long and so hard on women’s status in the public realm, on how many female politicians there are, on how equal we are in the workplace, that in its negligence, it hasn’t just lost sight of, but, trampled on, family, children, our community, our men – the things that for us, family-centred women, are what really count.

And it gets worse than that. Feminists have actually made it difficult for us family-oriented women to care for our children, our families and the world around us in the way we know best. It’s not just that anything short of a proper career is frowned upon and there is enormous social pressure to be in the workplace and perform. Feminists have had a hand in creating the economic pressure as well.

Where there are so many two (high) income families competing for housing those of us with more modest aspirations just don’t stand a chance. The tax system, where people are taxed as individuals, regardless of whether or not they support a family, is entirely in keeping with feminist aims. And it is feminist women who lie behind the current movement to get women out to work.

Feminism has been particularly damaging for less advantaged women. To those who clean your houses and look after your children, it’s not the privileged women jockeying for higher status at work who are going to improve their standard of living. It’s having a supportive and decently earning man. And feminism is doing nothing to help here. As female employment has increased male inactivity is on the rise. In nearly all areas of employment women are gaining ground relative to men. Men are less likely to get apprenticeships and throughout the whole education system males fall significantly behind.

Feminism has been so destructive because it is very inwardly focused; usually on rather educated women concerned about improving their own position without any real regard for the consequences of this on anyone else.

This seems to me to be a direct contradiction of what the female sex is all about. We are the sex entrusted (if you will) with the guardianship of children and whether or not we actually have children, I think this gives us a more direct and tangible interest in the world, its people, even in the future of the human race. As such I think we need to be more outwardly focused, examine how the policies that we support might indirectly impact on children, how they might affect less educated or less advantaged women and also finally how they impact on our brothers, our fathers, our sons and our lovers. Let’s keep an eye on how our policies impact on men.

Belinda Brown

  • Earthenware

    The powers that be seem intent on maintaining high levels of available cheap labour in order to avoid a repeat of the employment situation (favourable to workers) that existed in the 1960s.

    Mass immigration is one way of doing it, getting all women out to work is another.

    The problem is that once wages have been lowered and rents/mortgages increased, everyone is stuck needing two incomes.

    We may prefer to give women the freedom to choose whether to work or not, but at the moment they are denied that choice by the financial consequences of the poor choices of successive governments.

    Wages need to rise and accommodation costs need to fall. This can only be done by returning to a more sane employee/vacancy balance and we can only do this by stopping immigration and being more committed to deporting illegal immigrants.

    Once women again find it financially viable to give up work to look after their families, I suspect that many would choose to do so.

    • Valeriekat

      I did but my husband was more able to be economically successful than I was.

      • Lorirpahl2

        ;c126Work At Home….Special Report….Earn 18k+ per monthfew days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here;c126➤➤➤➤➤ http://www.nationalemployments.com.­nu .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:::::;c126……

  • timbazo

    ‘ … the public realm is there to serve the interests of the private and we know who is in charge of that.’ This is only true if men are forced to support their offspring and if domestic violence is effectively outlawed.

    • Belinda Brown

      well if men don’t support their offspring in the way the mother sees fit he will be booted out and the state will take over where necessary, and domestic violence against women is effectively outlawed – a woman can get a man arrested when she wants…

      • timbazo

        ‘the state will take over where necessary’. This of course applies only to those countries where there is a developed welfare state. Even in most of those countries, the welfare state has come to the limits of what it can do for unsupported mothers and children.

        ‘domestic violence against women is effectively outlawed’. Even in the mainstream society in the UK, this is a recent development. I believe marital rape was legal until the 1980s. Even here, though, the police are either unwilling to act on behalf of or thwarted in protecting women in many immigrant communities. The Independent recently ran an article on how the majority of young women in Pakistan believe that there is at least one reason why husbands can legitimately beat their wives. This is a culture we are still importing and probably one reason why so many young British-Pakistani men are willing to marry a girl from a village in Pakistan.

        It would also have been more honest of you to have acknowledged the role of feminists in supporting the expansion of the welfare state to support single mothers and in the struggle to get the police and judiciary to take domestic violence seriously.

  • Venom52

    Tell you what, Belinda, here’s a cunning plan for how you could deliver a massive kick in the (lady)balls to modern feminism. The idea would be to commission research among potential Ukip voters, i.e. not people who vote Ukip already, but those who say they might vote Ukip in future elections. The survey would pose the question as to how much more likely such people would be to vote for Ukip if it became a passionately and explicitly anti-feminist party. My guess is that this change would boost Ukip’s electoral prospects by several orders of magnitude and that this would be reflected in those results. As it stands, the Ukip leadership have assimilated many of the politically correct ideas of the other parties, but if the party’s executive saw those numbers they might feel compelled to force Farage’s hand and to ensure their supporters & potential supporters get the policies and direction they really want. In the US Trump is sticking two fingers up to political correctness and reaping some handsome rewards for doing so.

    • Maximum Overdrive

      UKIP do need to ditch their PC immigration policy where they’d be more welcoming to immigrants from Commonwealth countries like Nigeria than immigrants from European countries like Denmark.

      • Davidsb

        As I understand it, the UKIP policy (as at the last election – it may of course have changed since then) was to put putative non-EU immigrants on a level playing field with putative EU immigrants.

        This would clearly result in (say) a Nigerian MD being preferred to an unqualified Dane, and equally a Danish MD being preferred to an unqualified Nigerian, all other things being equal.

        Nothing to do with nationality or race – everything to do with making a positive contribution to the UK.

        • Maximum Overdrive

          Nigerians don’t make a positive contribution anywhere.

  • English Advocate

    Aaron Russo talking to Alex Jones: the Rockefellers promoted feminism because: 1) half the population weren’t being taxed 2) to break up the family –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8EZQuLaAJ0

  • Bonce

    Feminism is a sub project from the Frankfurt school cultural Marxists of the 1920s.
    Its objective is to destroy society, so a communist style order can rule over the people.
    The key target is the family. You attack this by attacking the roles of men and women.

  • Colkitto03

    I very much like the way the point is made in this peice. Thought provoking indeed. I had never thought of it in these terms before. Its made me think about how the main stream television media relentlessly pushes the “public life” ideal as described above. The way in which those in the political and media establisment choose to live thier lives has become a somewhat unassailable standard for the rest of us. What give me hope is that the internet (and sites/blogs like this one) are breaking the monopoly of the MSM bit by bit. Its great to read articles that show you that not everyone in this country buys into the politcally correct view.