Feminist Amorality

Her article is so long it becomes agonizing. I am happy to link Zoe Williams’ screed about feminism in the Guardian, but I will spare you the details.

I prefer to examine two basic principles that Williams presents as self-evident, and unarguable, truths.

In her second paragraph Williams offers a definition of feminism: “Feminism is just equality. Would a man be allowed to do it? Then so should you. Would a man feel bad about it? No? Then nor should you.”

Evidently, Williams does not know the difference between equal and same. Nor does she seem to understand that if women are being told to model themselves on men, they are being induced to become ersatz men.

Doesn’t this make male behavior and male emotion the gold standard? Does anyone really believe that a woman should be doing anything a man does and should be feeling whatever a man feels?

In a strange way this makes men the superior sex, the ultimate role model for all womanly behavior.

Am I the only one who finds that to be profoundly misogynistic?

But, that isn’t all. Williams also offers us a sample of her moral thinking. On its face her principle is so ignorant and appalling that one must needs counter it.

She says: “It ought to be obvious, beyond remarking, that a woman should be able to sleep with whom she wants, when she wants, as often as she wants, without danger and without shame.”

Beyond remarking? One does well to remark and question this principle. When one does, one discovers that it is very bad advice, indeed.

In conjunction with Williams’ definition of feminism, it assumes that men do what they want when they want, that they are never in danger and never feel responsible for their actions.

One wonders how a feminist would react if her man decided that he had the right to have as much sex as he wanted when he wanted with whom he wanted... commitments and consequences be damned?

I will grant that Williams probably does not know what she is saying, but still, she is saying that both women and men should do whatever they want regardless of their duties, responsibilities, commitments, and relationships.

It’s as though she has defined human beings as pleasure-seeking organisms, as creatures that fulfill themselves by the reckless pursuit of pleasure. If that were true, humans would not be social beings and would not have responsibilities toward other people.

If a woman is married or committed to a relationship, should she will follow her desires wherever they lead her? Should she be having sex with children or dogs? And should her behavior in that or other cases be “beyond remarking?”

According to this principle, neither a man nor a woman should ever feel any sense of personal responsibility. And neither of them should ever concern him or herself with the consequences of his or her behavior.

As moral principles go, this is pure nihilism, and profoundly misguided. For those who believe that Williams did not mean what she said, I would reply that she should have followed the ancient moral principle and said what she meant.