Furthermore, women's liberation of today may have some unexpected routes, starting with the CIA for ulterior political motives. Are women being brainwashed and taught feminism instead of actually experiencing it? Is our perception being manipulated? Why were other women's liberation movements paid zero attention and shut down, and the CIA funded movement promoted? Feminism is a movement that works towards creating equality between sexes and women’s rights. Though I fully support equality and all to have freedom and rights, I believe that aspects of this movement have created separation amongst us, stemming from over-identifying with gender. If we look at gender issues, particularly women’s issues, we’ve seen massive amounts of inequality throughout history. For example, look at all of our founding ‘fathers’ of science, quantum physics, engineering, psychology, etc. Gender inequality exists within every field of academia. Many ‘groundbreaking’ discoveries have been attributed to men, and solely to men. Many have been stolen from women, simply because they were women, and many discoveries made by women have gone completely unacknowledged by academia.
The wage gap is another example of inequality, but more on that later. One of my favourite examples women in history is Rachel Carson, a major player in the environmental movement today. Carson sparked the entire movement in the 1960s with her book Silent Spring. She is a writer, biologist, environmentalist and ecologist.
The book documented the dangers of pesticides and herbicides, something that we are still trying to create awareness about today. I wrote an article a few years ago regarding ‘female revolutionaries’ you won’t hear about in history class if you’d like to see some more examples. It is my hope that one day we will have a book that details all revolutionary minds, regardless of their gender, or even race. That being said, I still believe there are some important points to consider when talking about gender issues. A viewpoint that really resonates with me is one from political activist Candace Owens, which she shared in an article on the Stamford Advocate. Owens explains: My first outward rejection of the modern ideals of feminism occurred accidentally, during a mandatory women’s studies course in college. My professor had just gone over a staggering statistic that some 89 percent of people suffering with eating disorders were women. “This,” she explained, was “due to the unrealistic expectations placed upon us by the patriarchy.” “What then do you make of all the men that do steroids?” I surmised aloud, “... be it the fault of the matriarchy?” This is a great point, and it comes out of questioning the blame culture we have in our modern world. Candace’s question highlights the pressures society as a whole puts on both genders. Both have been given ‘identities’ within society, and both are subjected to sexism. For years, elitist groups and corporations have created narratives surrounding gender norms in order to capitalize on gender identification. She then goes on to describe how it was the above mentioned exchange that sparked her thesis on why feminism is broken, and how women are being taught it rather than experiencing it. Women are being taught it, rather than experiencing it. In fact, in many cases we are being encouraged to override our experiences in favour of indoctrination. At best, the movement denotes a selective musketeer mentality: it’s a pledge that a bad experience had by one ought to be broadcast and accepted as the reality for all, but a good experience had by one? Well, that woman ought to just shut up and keep it to herself. Yup. Let us hand a microphone to the woman who was beat by her husband, but muffle the one beside her who might wish to thank her own for the role he plays in her happiness. I thought this was a very interesting point, and one that I can relate to. I myself am an ethnic minority, but have not directly experienced racism. Although I know my parents and many others have, I believe we’ve also come to expect this behavior from others, rather than observe it when it actually happens. This behaviour, on both sides, comes from a narrative of separation that has become so ingrained within society that we sometimes perceive experiences as being racially motivated even when they may not be. Many women have also grown accustomed to distrusting men, feeling hatred toward men and acting from the same sexist mentality they feel inclined to fight against. Does this not simply reinforce hatred and inequality, and lack empathy as a whole? Does this separated behaviour in society not benefit our political overlord’s power? Separatism, gender and racial issues are frequent subjects within media, and although they deserve to be discussed, they are also overblown and hyped up for political purposes. More on that below. Promoting identity politics has always been a governmental tool, and as a result, the masses simply follow and become indoctrinated without ever questioning it. Identity politics has served, and continues to serve, many useful purposes for the elite. Mark Crispin, a professor of media studies from New York University, shares something many of us are not aware of: It’s interesting to note that Ford and Rockefeller and the other foundations with strong CIA connections started giving grants in the early 70s to study race and gender. It was a sudden move towards identify politics by these organizations and the theory is that the reason they did this was to balkanize the left and to prevent it from pursuing any kind of a class or economic analysis (source) He goes on to state how, rather than empowering a ‘class’ identity which supports unity, major academic institutions are instructed to promote the primacy of race and gender to ensure that the establishment’s agenda of ‘polarization’ is always fuelled. New York University (NYU), one of the most prestigious and expensive institutions in the United States, likes to present itself as liberal and “diverse,” and as an “institution without walls.” Many of the school’s departments, including history, sociology or anthropology, count leading representatives of postmodernism and identity politics among their faculty, and the promotion of race and gender as having primacy over class is, in many ways, the official school ideology. However, behind this surface of “diversity” lie extensive ties to big business, the Democratic Party and the military. As this series will demonstrate, NYU is now closely integrated into the preparations for war against both Russia and China, and, along with that, in the efforts of both the state and the major corporations to conduct mass surveillance and censor free speech on the Internet. (source) It’s interesting to note the Ford and Rockefeller connections with regards to gender studies. It reminded me of an interview conducted with Aaron Russo, a well-known American entertainment businessman, film producer and director, and political activist. He’s best-known for producing movies such as Trading Places, Wise Guys, and The Rose. In an interview, he explained a conversation he had with one of the members of the Rockefeller family. He stated how he was told that they (the Rockefeller’s) used the media they owned (and everything else) to create, fund and push the women’s liberation movement. Aaron expressed (to Rockefeller) how women have the right to work and get equal pay, no doubt, and this should be no different from men, just like they won the right to vote etc., but he was unaware of the intentions behind the movement.
The same forces that have suppressed women all of these years were responsible for supporting the liberation movement. How weird is that? He explains how the women’s liberation movement was birthed because they realized they didn’t want to just tax half the population, they wanted all of them.
The second reason was to indoctrinate people in regards to how they think. In this case, it was women, but just as equally, men had also been indoctrinated in their ways of thinking as well. This is something we still see today. Russo expresses how, up until then, he thought the effort and movement was quite a noble thing, but when he saw the intentions behind the movement and the sudden big push it had received, he saw “the evil behind what he thought was a noble venture.” After this, Gloria Steinem became more popular. Steinem was known as a feminist, journalist, and social political activist, and was seen as the leader and spokeswoman for the American feminist movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence suggesting that she worked for the CIA, spying on Marxist students in Europe and infiltrating their meetings. She didn’t deny this, as an article from the New Yorker points out: So what, exactly, was the N.S.A. useful for? This is where things get murky. According to Paget’s account, the N.S.A. was apparently not used for what the C.I.A. called “political warfare.” The agency did create a front organization called the Independent Research Service (inventing titles that are as meaningless as possible is part of the spy game) for the purpose of recruiting American students to disrupt Soviet-controlled World Youth Festivals in Vienna, in 1959, and Helsinki, in 1962.
The person in charge was the future feminist Gloria Steinem, who knew perfectly well where the money was coming from and never regretted taking it. “If I had a choice I would do it again,” she later said. Regarding the women’s liberation movement: (source) Apparently, Steinem also tried to suppress information unearthed in the 70s by a radical feminist group called the Red Stockings. This group spoke up against Steinem, and the two were seen as the main women’s liberation movement leaders at the time.
The Red Stockings seemed to be very upset with Steinem, questioning her motives and why she was receiving all of the funding from these intelligence agencies to push her version of the women’s liberation movement. (source) Ms. magazine is what the Red Stockings seemed to be upset about, which was founded by Steinem. It represented a different kind of women’s liberation movement than all of the others at the time. Again, this was likely because of her intelligence agency connections and the motivations behind them. It’s the one that received the most attention and became the most popular. Some of these women who were in the audience at the Red Stockings’ press conference asked why the Red Stockings did not give greater prominence to their political critique of Ms. (Steinem) than to to allegations that Steinem had worked for the CIA. Sarachild’s response (from Red Stockings) about that is that the Red Stockings is discussing liberalism in the women’s movement in its forthcoming journal, Feminist Revolution, but that they consider Ms. inauthentic. “Ms.’s liberalism is different from other’s liberalism, “she said. Her first feelings that something was wrong with Ms. came at a meeting in 1972 where women from Ms. were telling old NOW members how to organize. She said that although she disagreed with the NOW women on many issues, she almost cried at the condescension with which they were being treated. Sarachild does not believe that Red Stockings‘ challenge to Ms. can be adequately described as a struggle because “one faction has all the money and power.” (source) Steinem tried to suppress this information unearthed in the 1970s by the Red Stockings. In 1979, Steinem and her powerful CIA-connected friends, Katharine Graham of the Washington Post and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas, prevented Random House from publishing it in Feminist Revolution. Nevertheless, the story appeared in the Village Voice on May 21, 1979. How fascinating are all of these connections? If Candace Owens was alive back then, she would probably have been part of the real feminist revolution, not the seemingly manufactured one that took over for ulterior motives and agendas. Although the feminist movement was one of importance at its time in history, it’s important to understand all motives behind it today. It seems that this was the start of indoctrinated feminism, a tool that can be used to divide society. Owens preaches, as mentioned above, that feminism today isn’t experienced as much as it is taught. I find it necessary to formally state that not once in my entire life was I made to feel incapable, or weak next to my male peers. Not once did a school teacher tell me that I ought to learn to cook and clean rather than to read and write, and for clarification, the eating disorder that I had in college had absolutely nothing to do with the urging of any man. How many feminists out there have actually experienced discrimination because they are a female? How many simply believe they have because their minds were indoctrinated with this mindset in the first place? I’m not suggesting that we’ve achieved equality 100% of the way, nor am I saying you shouldn’t speak up for someone who’s being discriminated against. It’s clear that gender inequality can still be seen in aspects of society today. However, we’re bombarded by reports on sexism and separatism on a daily basis by mainstream media, andit feels as though the hate and divide amongst men and women is widening regardless of how close the equality gap has become. Why? It gets ickier: I happen to find it simply polite when a man opens a door for a woman and not once has the action sent me into analytical overdrive regarding what sort of monster would assume my incapability?! No, in fact I typically just say thank you. And I’m not sorry for any of this by the way, so if that somehow disqualifies me from sitting at the table of “real women,” I’ll learn to live with the losses. Happy women are growing tired of being silenced. I’ve got girlfriends who choose to stay at home to raise their children, and they are not prisoners; I know a few that voted against Hillary Clinton who are far from deplorable, and perhaps most shockingly of all, not one of these ladies feels victimized by the state of their own womanhood. Asking them to disregard their content in favor of a movement, isn’t a movement, it’s an agenda, and a strikingly ironic one at that; it tells us women repeatedly that we must accept our status as the weaker sex, the very notion that it claims to reject. – Candace Owens According to Owens, women are being targeted and bullied into a certain train of thought: It is not my intention to laugh or offend. I am aware that in a culture where “being a victim” is the new black, such a bold proclamation of happiness might unintentionally create a glitch in the matrix. I am aware that if I seek to be on-trend, then I ought to grab onto my womanhood, or my African-American roots, or my absolutely-anything-at-all that might deem me an objectifiable minority. And then I’d cry boo-hoo and wait ... for a hand-out, perhaps. Or a pat on the back, or a hashtag that would make it rain validation in the deep recesses of my heart. And then of course I would no longer have to be responsible for anything; Not my own lack of achievements, not my today, and certainly not my tomorrow because I could blame it all on my unfortunate status as a victim. It’s just they couldn’t program me to think like this, and for that, I am of no use to feminism. This narrative reminded me of a post I saw floating around on social media, shared below. This is where the conversation of emotional intelligence and dropping our identities comes into play. Are we addicted to drama, conflict, and disagreement? When what we learn causes our belief systems to collapse, do we hang onto them anyways? Do we get stuck trying to hold onto them because we identify with them? Sometimes it’s not easy to let go of our political identities, the sides we choose, and even the division created by over-identifying with race, religion and culture. But at some point, if we want change, we have to learn to let go of these narratives and start looking at truth. Think back to a moment where you had to let go of a belief. How did you do it? Was it so bad once you did? Where might you be stuck today if you hadn’t let go of it? Is what you are stuck on or fighting for truly making you happy or making your life better? Related CE Article: Why We’re Systematically Trained To Be Offended By Everything I feel we are stretching the gender a little too much, as far as I’m concerned, whether someone is a man or a woman is not even my concern. What somebody’s got in their pants what’s my business about it? These things are relevant only in bathrooms and bedrooms. This should not be relevant anywhere else. Because, you must understand, too much identification with gender essentially means you’re identifying with your body parts. If you must identify with your body parts, if that’s the only way you can live, why choose reproductive organs? At least choose the brains! Why are we constantly thinking who is a man, who is a woman? This is a fetish. Why are you even bothered? Only for certain relationships it matters, the rest of the time, why does it matter? I’m asking, we are making too much out of it, by this both genders will suffer.
These words come from Sadhguru, which I also found very interesting. He goes on to explain. Yes, unfortunately, there have been long periods of exploitation of women across the world and even in this country, but you must understand there was a time when, in this country, women were not exploited by any means.
They lived fabulous lives, you just look back and see. Do you see, for example, you see, of lets say Ramayana, Mahabharata (Hindu texts) whatever you have, do you see women going around on whales? Do you see women hiding? No, the queen sat on the kings lap in public. So, this was not a culture like that but you must understand we have faced a little over a thousand years of innovations. When innovations happen, they not only go for your gold, they also go for your wives and your daughters first. So, putting them behind, hiding them somewhere, among sacks of grain, became a normal thing. So when thousands of years of continuous innovations happen the risk of keeping your woman out became a very wrong thing to do, so unfortunately they’re still continuing. I think we’ll break through in the next coming generation, I think we are already breaking through in a big way but we must understand that we are only the second generation after independence, so don’t be in too much of a rush and make this one species into two. Unfortunately, in reaction to the past exploitations, we are trying to create two species. It’s very important the changes we make in our society are not in reaction to the wrong things that happened in the past. This is another great point that echoes Owens’ point made above. It’s important to mention that some feminists may react to the queen/king comment above, implying that the role of a king and a queen sitting on his lap renders the queen inferior. Success and happiness are not measured by the amount of money we make. This brings me to one of Sadhguru’s main points about modern day feminism: It’s driven by economics. And no, this does not mean there should not be equality in pay. Obviously, there should be total equality when it comes to pay. But throughout history, men and women have had different roles, none represent something better, and both were equally as strong. In fact, every human being has masculine and feminine energies within them, we are two halves that make a whole. One no better than the other. But if we only focus on money when discussing gender inequality, we will always live in a masculine dominated world, “not male, but masculine” (Sadhguru).
The feminine qualities will disappear if we continue to look at this from an economics perspective, as females will also strive for what is ‘masculine.’ Suppose a man here feels like having a baby, can he have? So whatever, we can complain we don’t have equal opportunity. Biologically we’re designed to fulfil different aspects of nature. Why is one thing superior and another thing inferior? Simply because you are making economic activity as the ultimate activity, this is the only problem.
The fundamental problem is you are making economic activity the greatest thing you can do. Just making money is the most successful thing you can do in life? Valuing people only for the money that they earn, you will make the entire world into your market place. Personally, I’m not sure how many gender issues truly exist today, and how many examples of inequality are present. Let’s take the wage gap, for example.
The average woman’s pay is approximately 80 percent of that of a man’s. Is this because they are women and are not given equal hiring opportunities? Or is it because men are more attracted to higher paying jobs, like the role of a CEO? Then again, many of these statistics only take into account white women, and so the gender wage gap is significantly higher within many minority groups.
There are so many more factors at play here than what we are shown.
The bottom line on statistics is we must look at a multifactored analysis behind the questions we have, and not simply blame it on one aspect like gender. Many, many things go into understanding why things are the way they are today. This is precisely why many people are exceptions to statistics, because it is never about ONE factor. Society often frowns upon the traditional image of women being in the home, taking care of children and being nurturing. We implied that this was somehow inferior to working outside the home, when really it’s equally as important as any other job, if not more. And it’s not just a woman’s job. Many men are shamed for wanting to stay home and look after their children, as societal norms encourage men to provide for their families in a more ‘traditional’ sense. So, I encourage you to ask yourselves: What’s really going on here with modern day feminism? I ask all women of my generation reading this: Have you ever experienced discrimination simply because you’re a woman? If so, how often? To reiterate, it’s quite clear that there are issues we still must address as a society, but in order to solve them don’t we need to truly understand them? We also should consider that we are approaching these subjects from a place of love, and not anger or hate. Otherwise, this will only create more separatism and further sexism. .
Read the full article at the original website